• Online Features  This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (28)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Optics/ Refraction  • Statistics and Research Methods  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Susan Vitale, PhD, MHS; Robert D. Sperduto, MD; Frederick L. Ferris III, MD

Arch Ophthalmol. 2009;127(12):1632-1639.

Objective  To compare US population prevalence estimates for myopia in 1971-1972 and 1999-2004.

Methods  The 1971-1972 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey provided the earliest nationally representative estimates for US myopia prevalence; myopia was diagnosed by an algorithm using either lensometry, pinhole visual acuity, and presenting visual acuity (for presenting visual acuity 20/40) or retinoscopy (for presenting visual acuity 20/50). Using a similar method for diagnosing myopia, we examined data from the 1999-2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey to determine whether myopia prevalence had changed during the 30 years between the 2 surveys.

Results  Using the 1971-1972 method, the estimated prevalence of myopia in persons aged 12 to 54 years was significantly higher in 1999-2004 than in 1971-1972 (41.6% vs 25.0%, respectively; P < .001). Prevalence estimates were higher in 1999-2004 than in 1971-1972 for black individuals (33.5% vs 13.0%, respectively; P < .001) and white individuals (43.0% vs 26.3%, respectively; P < .001) and for all levels of myopia severity (>–2.0 diopters [D]: 17.5% vs 13.4%, respectively [P < .001]; –2.0 to >–7.9 D: 22.4% vs 11.4%, respectively [P < .001]; –7.9 D: 1.6% vs 0.2%, respectively [P < .001]).

Conclusions  When using similar methods for each period, the prevalence of myopia in the United States appears to be substantially higher in 1999-2004 than 30 years earlier. Identifying modifiable risk factors for myopia could lead to the development of cost-effective interventional strategies.

Author Affiliations: Division of Epidemiology and Clinical Applications, National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.

CiteULike    Connotea    Delicious    Digg    Facebook    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Decrease in Rate of Myopia Progression with a Contact Lens Designed to Reduce Relative Peripheral Hyperopia: One-Year Results
Sankaridurg et al.
IOVS 2011;52:9362-9367.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Prevalence and Associations of Anisometropia with Spherical Ametropia, Cylindrical Power, Age, and Sex in Refractive Surgery Candidates
Linke et al.
IOVS 2011;52:7538-7547.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Identification of Multipotent Stem/Progenitor Cells in Murine Sclera
Tsai et al.
IOVS 2011;52:5481-5487.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Progressive-Addition Lenses versus Single-Vision Lenses for Slowing Progression of Myopia in Children with High Accommodative Lag and Near Esophoria
Correction of Myopia Evaluation Trial 2 Study Grou
IOVS 2011;52:2749-2757.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Effect of Two-Zone Concentric Bifocal Spectacle Lenses on Refractive Error Development and Eye Growth in Young Chicks
Liu and Wildsoet
IOVS 2011;52:1078-1086.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Prevalence of Myopia Has Increased in Teenagers
JWatch Pediatrics 2010;2010:3-3.
FULL TEXT