Evidence Hub

Prevalence of myopia in Europe: a systematic review and meta-analysis of data from 14 countries

A. Moreira-Rosário, C. Lança, Andrzej E. Grzybowski

The Lancet Regional Health - Europe, 2025

128,012 participants · 28 citations

Abstract

Summary Background Although myopia prevalence increased in East Asian countries, the burden of myopia in Europe is less known. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the prevalence of myopia in Europe and at the country level. Methods We searched PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science to identify studies on myopia prevalence published until January 2024, regardless of language. We included European cross-sectional and cohort studies with defined sampling strategies and excluded clinical surveys, myopia registries, self-reported near-sightedness, and non-representative populations. Pooled prevalence was estimated using random-effects models. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochran's Q (χ2 test) and the I2 statistic. The study protocol was preregistered in PROSPERO (CRD42023471527). Findings We screened 2074 records and included 22 studies (from 14 European countries; n = 128,012) in the meta-analyses. The pooled prevalence of myopia was 23.5% (95% CI: 18.5–29.3; I2 = 99.7%), ranging from 11.9% in Finland to 49.7% in Sweden. In cycloplegic studies, myopia prevalence was 18.9% (95% CI: 13.2–26.5%; I2 = 99.7%) vs. 31.2% (95% CI: 24.9–38.3%; I2 = 99.3%) in non-cycloplegic studies. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses exploring sources of heterogeneity showed a lower prevalence in children (6–11 years; 5.5%) compared with adolescents (12–17 years; 25.2%) and adults (18–39 years; 24.3%) in cycloplegic studies. No significant differences in prevalence were…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 128,012 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free