Sightsavers Logo
Research centre
  • Home
  • About us
  • Research approach
  • Research studies and publications
  • Evidence gap maps
Join in:
  • Join in: Facebook
  • Join in: Twitter
  • Join in: Instagram
  • Join in: LinkedIn
  • Join in: YouTube
  • Global
  • Close search bar
    Donate
    • Home
    • About us
    • Research approach
    • Research studies and publications
    • Evidence gap maps

    Association between Chinese eye exercises and onset of myopia: a meta-analysis

    Methodological quality of the review: Medium confidence

    Author: Zhi-Peng Lu, Man-Zhao Ouyang, Ran Zhang, Xiao Tang, Hao-Jie Zhong

    Region: China

    Sector: Myopia

    Subsector: Chinese eye exercises and onset of myopia

    Equity focus: School children

    Study population: School students

    Type of programme: School based

    Review type: Other review

    Quantitative synthesis method: Meta-analysis

    Qualitative synthesis method: Not applicable

    Background: Myopia has emerged as a significant public health concern, with a rapidly increasing prevalence. A recent report estimated that approximately 1.4 billion individuals, worldwide, are myopic, comprising >20% of the population. Myopia has already reached epidemic levels in certain areas of East and Southeast Asia. Myopia is a risk factor for pathological ocular changes, such as cataracts, glaucoma, and myopia macular degeneration. It is an important cause of impaired vision and blindness. There is a need to introduce a simple and easy-to-use intervention for prevention of myopia onset. Chinese eye exercises, an intervention for visual protection and myopia prevention, originated from the theories of traditional Chinese medicine. However, the effects of Chinese eye exercises on prevention of myopia remain inconsistent.

    Objectives: To investigate the association between Chinese eye exercises and onset of myopia.

    Main findings: A total of five studies conducted in China were included in this meta-analysis. Four studies were cross-sectional and one was a case-control study. Study quality scores of the four cross-sectional studies ranged from eight to 11 stars, according to the AHRQ, while the case-control study received a score of nine scores, according to the NOS scale. This meta-analysis included data for a total of 14,590 participants (range: 60-11,138 participants per study).

    According to a fixed-effects model, performing Chinese eye exercises was associated with an increased risk for onset of myopia (pooled OR=1.19, 95% CI: 1.02-1.39). Since there was no obvious heterogeneity (P=0.19, I2=37%) observed among selected studies. Comparisons based on the quality and attitude (serious or not) of eye exercises showed that children that performed high-quality eye exercises were associated with a markedly lower risk of developing myopia, compared with those that did not perform high-quality exercises (pooled OR=0.27, 95% CI: 0.11-0.71). According to present findings, Chinese eye exercises showed a trend towards increased risk of developing myopia. However, this effect did not reach statistical significance (pooled OR=1.36, 95% CI: 0.98-1.90). Funnel plots, Begg’s test (P=0.734, continuity corrected), and Egger’s test (P=0.277) did not reveal any obvious publication bias.

    According to the authors, present findings suggest that performance of Chinese eye exercises is associated with a higher risk of myopia onset because most students performed low-quality eye exercises. However, performing high-quality Chinese eye exercises significantly lowers rates of myopia onset. Therefore, students should be encouraged to perform high-quality Chinese eye exercises.

    Methodology: Inclusion criteria included 1) Participants (students with or without myopia); 2) Interventions (performed Chinese eye exercises); 3) Comparators (did not perform Chinese eye exercises); 4) Outcomes (risk ratio [RR] or odds ratio [OR] of outcomes was provided or could be calculated); and 5) Studies (cohort, cross-sectional, or randomised controlled trials). Inclusion was not restricted by study size, language, or publication type. Full-text articles were reviewed, independently, by two investigators (OMZ and ZR) to evaluate their eligibility.

    The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement was used as a guideline for this meta-analysis. PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to 24 July 2018. Studies were identified using a combination of relevant keywords, including acupoints, exercises, myopia and near-sightedness.

    Study characteristics and data were independently extracted by two investigators. Extracted data included first author, year of publication, location, study design, sample size, adjusted/unadjusted OR (or RR), and adjusted factors. Conflicts in data extraction were resolved through discussion until a consensus was reached. The quality of cohort and case-control studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), while the quality of cross-sectional studies was assessed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Studies with NOS scores ≥ 7 or an AHRQ scores ≥ 8 were considered high-quality. Review Manager Version 5.3 (Cochrane Collaboration, Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark) and STATA v12 (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA) were used for analyses. Outcomes were summarised as pooled ORs (or RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Statistical heterogeneity was measured using the Chi-squared test and inconsistency index (I2) statistics. A P-value 0.1 or I2>50% indicates obvious heterogeneity. A random-effects model was used for sensitivity analysis. Potential publication bias was assessed, qualitatively, through visual inspection of funnel plots and, quantitatively, through calculation of Begg’s or Egger’s tests. A P-value 0.05 (two-tailed) indicates statistical significance.

    Applicability/external validity: The authors highlighted four major limitations to consider when using the result externally. First, the number of studies included in this meta-analysis was limited. There were only five studies, involving 14,590 participants. Second, diagnosis of myopia was assessed through two different ways. Third, recall bias may also be present, considering that assessment of the quality of eye exercises in the included studies was performed using questionnaires. Fourth, other confounding factors (i.e., the duration of the eye exercises and hand hygiene), which may influence the effects of these exercises, were not taken into consideration.

    Geographic focus: This meta-analysis focused on regions in China.

    Summary of quality assessment:

    In conclusion, medium confidence was attributed to the conclusions about the effects of this study. Despite the use of a good methodology, this review has some limitations, particularly in its robustness: the number of studies included in this meta-analysis was limited. Only five studies, involving 14,590 participants, were selected, none of which were randomised controlled trials. This was also acknowledged by the authors.

    Publication Source:

    Lu Z, Ouyang M, Zhang R, Tang X, Zhong H. Association between Chinese eye exercises and onset of myopia: a meta-analysis. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2010, 12(5), 4580-4588.

    source

    Sightsavers Logo
    Research centre
    • Join in:
    • Join in: Facebook
    • Join in: X
    • Join in: Instagram
    • Join in: LinkedIn
    • Join in: YouTube

    Protecting sight, fighting disease and promoting equality for all

  • Accessibility
  • Sightsavers homepage
  • Our policies
  • Media centre
  • Contact us
  • Jobs
  • Cookies and privacy Terms and conditions Modern slavery statement Safeguarding

    © 2025 by Sightsavers, Inc., Business Address for all correspondence: One Boston Place, Suite 2600, Boston, MA 02108.

    Our website uses cookies

    To make sure you have a great experience on our site, we’d like your consent to use cookies. These will collect anonymous statistics to personalise your experience.

    Manage preferences

    You have the option to enable non-essential cookies, which will help us enhance your experience and improve our website.

    Essential cookiesAlways on

    These enable our site to work correctly, for example by storing page settings. You can disable these by changing your browser settings, but some parts of our website will not work as expected.

    Analytics cookies

    To improve our website, we’d like to collect anonymous data about how you use the site, such as which pages you read, the device you’re using, and whether your visit includes a donation. This is completely anonymous, and is never used to profile individual visitors.

    Advertising cookies

    To raise awareness about our work, we’d like to show you Sightsavers adverts as you browse the web. By accepting these cookies, our advertising partners may use anonymous information to show you our adverts on other websites you visit. If you do not enable advertising cookies, you will still see adverts on other websites, but they may be less relevant to you. For info, see the Google Ads privacy policy.