Interventions to increase time spent outdoors for preventing incidence and progression of myopia in children
Ai Kido,Masahiro Miyake,Norio Watanabe
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd013549.pub2
IF: 8.4
2024-06-13
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Abstract:Myopia or nearsightedness is a type of refractive error. It causes people to see near objects clearly but distant objects as blurred. Good vision can be obtained if the refractive error is corrected properly but, where this is not possible, impaired vision will remain. The remaining myopia imposes a considerable personal and societal burden. In addition, the progression of myopia is more likely to be accompanied by other ocular diseases such as cataract, glaucoma and retinal detachment. Myopia has emerged as a significant global public health problem in recent years. The World Health Organization (WHO) reported uncorrected or undercorrected myopia to be a major cause of visual impairment worldwide. From both an individual and social perspective, it is important to prevent the onset of myopia and slow down its progression. Observational studies have shown that children who spend more time outdoors have a lower incidence of myopia. Several other non‐Cochrane systematic reviews have focused on the association between increasing children's outdoor activity time and the prevention of myopia. However, none of these systematic reviews were limited to randomised controlled trials (RCTs), as they included all types of study designs, including observational studies and non‐RCTs, in addition to RCTs. To assess the effects of interventions to increase outdoor time on the incidence and progression of myopia in children. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, ISRCTN registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP with no language restrictions. The databases were last searched on 24 June 2022. We included RCTs and cluster‐RCTs in which interventions were performed to increase the outdoor time for children with the aim of preventing the incidence and progression of myopia. We employed the standard methods recommended by Cochrane and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We considered the following outcome measures: mean change in refractive error from baseline, incidence of myopia, mean change in the axial length from baseline, mean change in unaided distance visual acuity from baseline, quality of life and adverse event. We included five RCTs in this review, four of which were cluster‐RCTs. The total number of participants was 10,733. The included participants were primary school children, most of whom were in first or second grade (aged six to nine years). Four cluster‐RCTs involved school‐based interventions to encourage children to spend more time outdoors. The interventions included classroom time outdoors, routine for spending recess outdoors, motivational tools for spending time outdoors, and encouragement through electronic information tools. The intervention groups had less change in refractive errors in the direction of myopia; however, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) included no benefit or both benefit and harm at years one and three, and differences at year two included both clinically important and unimportant benefits (at 1 year: mean difference (MD) 0.08 dioptres (D), 95% CI −0.01 to 0.17; 4 studies, 1656 participants; low‐certainty evidence; at 2 years: MD 0.13 D, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.19; 4 studies, 2454 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence; at 3 years: MD 0.17 D, 95% CI −0.17 to 0.51; 1 study, 729 participants; low‐certainty evidence). Our protocol defined a difference of 0.1 D in the change in refractive error as clinically important. At one year, the difference was less than 0.1 D, but at two and three years it was more than 0.1 D. The incidence of myopia was lower in the intervention groups compared to the control groups, but 95% CIs included no change or clinically unimportant benefits (at 1 year: 7.1% with intervention versus 9.5% with control; risk ratio (RR), 0.82, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.19; 3 studies, 1265 participants; low‐certainty evidence; at 2 years: 22.5% with intervention versus 26.7% with control; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.98; 3 studies, 2104 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence; at 3 years: 30.5% with intervention versus 39.8% with control; RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.01; 1 study, 394 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). Our protocol defined a difference of 3% in the incidence of myopia as clinically important. At one year, the difference was 2.4%, but there were clinically important differences between the two groups at two (4.2%) and three years (9.3%). The intervention groups had smaller changes in axial lengths in the direction of myopia than the control groups; however, 95% CIs included no benefit or both benefit and harm at years one and three (at 1 year: MD −0.04 mm, 95% CI −0.09 to 0; 3 studies, 1666 participants; low‐certainty evidence; at 2 years: MD −0.04 mm, 95% CI −0.07 to −0.01; 3 studies, 2479 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence; at 3 years: MD −0.03 mm, 95% CI −0.13 to 0.07; 1 study, 763 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). No included studies reported changes in unaided di -Abstract Truncated-
medicine, general & internal