Evidence Hub

A Cross-Sectional Study of Myopia and Morning Melatonin Status in Northern Irish Adolescent Children

Jane M Fulton, Sarah C. Flanagan, J. Sittlington, D. Cobice, Sara Dobbin, Sara J. McCullough, Gareth Orr, Patrick Richardson et al.

Journal of Ophthalmology, 2023

48 participants · 2 citations

Abstract

Purpose Previous studies have demonstrated an association between melatonin status and both refractive error and axial length in young adult myopes. This study aimed to determine if this relationship extends to a younger adolescent cohort. Methods Healthy children aged 12–15 years provided morning saliva samples before attending Ulster University (55°N) for cycloplegic autorefraction and axial length measures. Participants completed questionnaires describing recent sleep habits and physical activity. Salivary melatonin was quantified using high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Data collection for all participants occurred over a 1-week period (April 2021). Results Seventy participants aged 14.3 (95% CI: 14.2—14.5) years were categorised by spherical equivalent refraction [SER] (range: −5.38DS to +1.88DS) into two groups; myopic SER ≤ −0.50DS (n = 22) or nonmyopic −0.50DS 0.39). Higher levels of physical activity were associated with higher sleep quality (Spearman's rank, ρ = −0.28, P = 0.02). Conclusion The present study found no significant relationship between morning salivary melatonin levels and refractive error or axial length in young adolescents. This contrasts with outcomes from a previous study of adults with comparable methodology, season of data collection, and geographical location. Prospective studies are needed to understand the discrepancies between adult and childhood findings and evaluate whether melatonin levels in childhood are…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 48 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