我们如何才能更好地评估近视的儿科进展和相关的危险因素?新冠肺炎大流行的教训:系统回顾。

IF 3 3区 医学 Q1 OPHTHALMOLOGY Acta Ophthalmologica Pub Date : 2023-10-03 DOI:10.1111/aos.15773
Jerrald Lau, Wei-Ling Koh, Janelle Shaina Ng, Daphne Lee, Cherie Hui Peh, Janice Lam, Ker-Kan Tan, Victor Koh
{"title":"我们如何才能更好地评估近视的儿科进展和相关的危险因素?新冠肺炎大流行的教训:系统回顾。","authors":"Jerrald Lau,&nbsp;Wei-Ling Koh,&nbsp;Janelle Shaina Ng,&nbsp;Daphne Lee,&nbsp;Cherie Hui Peh,&nbsp;Janice Lam,&nbsp;Ker-Kan Tan,&nbsp;Victor Koh","doi":"10.1111/aos.15773","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>During the COVID-19 pandemic, home-based and remote learning—particularly using electronic devices—was rapidly pushed out. Increased near-work, screen time exposure and lack of outdoor time are risk factors that contribute to childhood myopia, but it is difficult to adopt recommendations from prior publications as a consistent limitation in the literature is the heterogeneity of research methodology. This review seeks to systematically evaluate how observational studies published during the pandemic have quantified and measured risk factors and myopia in school-going children and adolescents.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Three scientific databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus) were systematically searched from March 2020 to April 2022. Findings from relevant studies were descriptively summarised in relation to the PICOS-based objective of the review.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The final sample of 13 studies included research from six countries and comprised 1 411 908 children and adolescents. The majority of studies (<i>N</i> = 10; 76.9%) used spherical equivalent refraction (SER) of −0.5 dioptres or lower as a common definition of myopia. Most studies (77.8%) measuring screen time exposure found it higher during COVID-19 compared to pre-COVID, but only one study used objective measurement of screen time. The average critical appraisal score of the sample was only 66.1%, with a considerable number of studies failing to identify and adjust for potential confounders.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Future studies should consider emergent objective and validated measures of risk factors, account for potential a priori confounders and covariates and ensure more representativeness in the sociodemographic makeup of their samples.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":6915,"journal":{"name":"Acta Ophthalmologica","volume":"102 3","pages":"e257-e271"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How can we better evaluate paediatric progression of myopia and associated risk factors? Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review\",\"authors\":\"Jerrald Lau,&nbsp;Wei-Ling Koh,&nbsp;Janelle Shaina Ng,&nbsp;Daphne Lee,&nbsp;Cherie Hui Peh,&nbsp;Janice Lam,&nbsp;Ker-Kan Tan,&nbsp;Victor Koh\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/aos.15773\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Purpose</h3>\\n \\n <p>During the COVID-19 pandemic, home-based and remote learning—particularly using electronic devices—was rapidly pushed out. Increased near-work, screen time exposure and lack of outdoor time are risk factors that contribute to childhood myopia, but it is difficult to adopt recommendations from prior publications as a consistent limitation in the literature is the heterogeneity of research methodology. This review seeks to systematically evaluate how observational studies published during the pandemic have quantified and measured risk factors and myopia in school-going children and adolescents.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Three scientific databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus) were systematically searched from March 2020 to April 2022. Findings from relevant studies were descriptively summarised in relation to the PICOS-based objective of the review.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>The final sample of 13 studies included research from six countries and comprised 1 411 908 children and adolescents. The majority of studies (<i>N</i> = 10; 76.9%) used spherical equivalent refraction (SER) of −0.5 dioptres or lower as a common definition of myopia. Most studies (77.8%) measuring screen time exposure found it higher during COVID-19 compared to pre-COVID, but only one study used objective measurement of screen time. The average critical appraisal score of the sample was only 66.1%, with a considerable number of studies failing to identify and adjust for potential confounders.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>Future studies should consider emergent objective and validated measures of risk factors, account for potential a priori confounders and covariates and ensure more representativeness in the sociodemographic makeup of their samples.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":6915,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta Ophthalmologica\",\"volume\":\"102 3\",\"pages\":\"e257-e271\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta Ophthalmologica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aos.15773\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Ophthalmologica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aos.15773","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:在新冠肺炎大流行期间,家庭和远程学习——尤其是使用电子设备——迅速被淘汰。近距离工作、屏幕时间暴露和缺乏户外时间是导致儿童近视的风险因素,但很难采纳先前出版物的建议,因为文献中的一个一致限制是研究方法的异质性。这篇综述旨在系统评估疫情期间发表的观察性研究如何量化和测量上学儿童和青少年的近视风险因素。方法:从2020年3月至2022年4月,系统检索PubMed、CINAHL、Scopus三个科学数据库。相关研究的结果与基于PICOS的综述目标进行了描述性总结。结果:13项研究的最终样本包括来自6个国家的研究,包括1项 411 908名儿童和青少年。大多数研究(N = 10;76.9%)使用-0.5屈光度或更低的球面等效折射率(SER)作为近视的常见定义。大多数测量屏幕时间暴露的研究(77.8%)发现,与新冠肺炎之前相比,新冠肺炎期间的屏幕时间暴露更高,但只有一项研究使用了屏幕时间的客观测量。样本的平均临界评估得分仅为66.1%,相当多的研究未能识别和调整潜在的混杂因素。结论:未来的研究应考虑风险因素的紧急客观和验证措施,考虑潜在的先验混杂因素和协变量,并确保其样本的社会人口构成具有更大的代表性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
How can we better evaluate paediatric progression of myopia and associated risk factors? Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review

Purpose

During the COVID-19 pandemic, home-based and remote learning—particularly using electronic devices—was rapidly pushed out. Increased near-work, screen time exposure and lack of outdoor time are risk factors that contribute to childhood myopia, but it is difficult to adopt recommendations from prior publications as a consistent limitation in the literature is the heterogeneity of research methodology. This review seeks to systematically evaluate how observational studies published during the pandemic have quantified and measured risk factors and myopia in school-going children and adolescents.

Methods

Three scientific databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus) were systematically searched from March 2020 to April 2022. Findings from relevant studies were descriptively summarised in relation to the PICOS-based objective of the review.

Results

The final sample of 13 studies included research from six countries and comprised 1 411 908 children and adolescents. The majority of studies (N = 10; 76.9%) used spherical equivalent refraction (SER) of −0.5 dioptres or lower as a common definition of myopia. Most studies (77.8%) measuring screen time exposure found it higher during COVID-19 compared to pre-COVID, but only one study used objective measurement of screen time. The average critical appraisal score of the sample was only 66.1%, with a considerable number of studies failing to identify and adjust for potential confounders.

Conclusion

Future studies should consider emergent objective and validated measures of risk factors, account for potential a priori confounders and covariates and ensure more representativeness in the sociodemographic makeup of their samples.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Acta Ophthalmologica
Acta Ophthalmologica 医学-眼科学
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
5.90%
发文量
433
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Acta Ophthalmologica is published on behalf of the Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica Foundation and is the official scientific publication of the following societies: The Danish Ophthalmological Society, The Finnish Ophthalmological Society, The Icelandic Ophthalmological Society, The Norwegian Ophthalmological Society and The Swedish Ophthalmological Society, and also the European Association for Vision and Eye Research (EVER). Acta Ophthalmologica publishes clinical and experimental original articles, reviews, editorials, educational photo essays (Diagnosis and Therapy in Ophthalmology), case reports and case series, letters to the editor and doctoral theses.
期刊最新文献
Efficacy of intravitreal faricimab therapy for polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. The ever ongoing cosmetic quest to change eye colour. Slowing myopia progression with cylindrical annular refractive elements (CARE) spectacle lenses-Year 1 results from a 2-year prospective, multi-centre trial. Correlation of retinal fluid and photoreceptor and RPE loss in neovascular AMD by automated quantification, a real-world FRB! analysis. Incidence, risk factors, and patient characteristics in severe contact lens-related microbial keratitis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1