Home › Resources › Global Myopia Data
Global Epidemiology · Data Compendium

Global Myopia Prevalence by Country

Country-level prevalence with study provenance, evidence tiers, and clinical interpretation. Every figure carries a method label — why this matters →

Highest documented
96.5%
Seoul conscripts age 19 (Jung 2012, VA screening)
Global children average
36.6%
Ages 0–19 (Pan et al. 2025, cycloplegic meta-analysis)
Fastest growing
Urban China
Urban school-age: 52.7% · plateau ~2006; rural still rising
Lowest documented
<5%
Rural South Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, US NHW children (1.2%)
Critical caveat
Not comparable
NC studies show ~10–20pp higher than cycloplegic in same population
🌍 Open Interactive Explorer → ↓ Jump to data table

Global Pooled Estimates

Tier 1
⚠ These figures mix different data types — each card shows its type label. Modelled projections should not be cited as measured prevalence.
MEASURED · Children/adolescents
~36%
Global prevalence, ages 0–19 (Pan et al. 2025 meta-analysis, n=218k, cycloplegic where available)
MODELLED · All ages
~30%
Global all-ages 2020 (Holden 2016 modelling study) — not a measured prevalence
PROJECTION · 2050
~50%
Projected global prevalence 2050 (Holden 2016; IMI 2025) — model, not measured
MEASURED · Urban East Asia only
80–90%
Young adult prevalence, urban East Asian populations (NC + VA) — not national averages
META-ANALYSIS · Europe
23.5%
Europe pooled all ages (Moreira-Rosário 2025, 14 countries, n=128k, mixed methods)
MEASURED · USA adults
33–42%
USA adults ≥20yr (NHANES 1999–2004) — adult data, not comparable to child prevalence
PROJECTION · 2050
740M+
Children with myopia by 2050 (Holden 2016 model) — projection only

Why Methodology Labels Matter

Reference
🟢 C — Cycloplegic (Tier A, gold standard) 🟡 NC — Non-cycloplegic (Tier B, overestimates ~10–20pp in children) 🟡 VA — Visual acuity screening (Tier B, overestimates) 🟡 Claims — Administrative diagnosis data (Tier B, not refractive)
🟢 Cycloplegic (C)
Ciliary muscle paralysed before measurement. Eliminates accommodation artefact. IMI and WHO reference standard for paediatric studies. Required for accurate prevalence in children under 16.
🟡 Non-cycloplegic (NC)
Measured without drops. Accommodation inflates the apparent myopic shift in children. Overestimates prevalence by ~10–20pp vs cycloplegic in the same population (Moreira-Rosário 2025, 14 European countries).
🟡 VA Screening
Distance visual acuity — flags reduced vision without confirming refractive cause. Includes amblyopia, astigmatism, and other causes. Most South Korean military data uses this method.
🟡 Claims / Diagnosis
Administrative database records. Captures diagnosis-coded encounters, not measured refraction. Japan nationwide claims data falls here — useful for trend, not for prevalence estimation.
Practical implication: An NC study reporting 60% and a cycloplegic study reporting 70% in the same country are not necessarily contradictory — they may measure slightly different constructs. Every row below carries a method badge for this reason.
Evidence Tier Reference
🟢 Tier A — Population-based cycloplegic refraction 🟡 Tier B — NC / screening / claims (interpret with methodological limits) 🔴 Tier C — Modelled projection or contextual estimate (Table 2)

Table 1 — Primary & Labelled Data

Tiers A + B
Interactive Explorer → Choropleth map, regional comparison tool, and age curves.
Open Explorer
Region:
Method:
60 rows
Sort by:
Location & Population Prevalence Method & Year Clinical Interpretation Source
🌏 East Asia  ·  24 data points ▼
Shanghai (urban)
University students (mean age ~20yr); cycloplegic
95.5%
 C🟢 Tier A
2012
 Extreme prevalence. Myopia is the expected state. Shift clinical focus from detection to progression management and axial length tracking at every visit.
Sun J et al. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2012;53(11):7071–7. PMID 23060137
Shanghai (school)
Age-8 children, Shanghai urban; cycloplegic
30.8%
 C🟢 Tier A
2014
 Moderate-high prevalence. Active screening indicated. Risk factors (parental myopia, urban, high near-work) should trigger early biometry referral.
Ma Y et al. IOVS 2014 (Shanghai school-based cohort, ages 3–10, cycloplegic, n>2,000)
Beijing (school)
Grade 9 (ages ~14–15), Haidian district
65.5%
 C🟢 Tier A
2017
 Very high prevalence. Majority of school-age children affected. Early intervention before age 10 captures maximum treatment benefit.
Li Y et al. BMC Ophthalmol 2017. Haidian 10-yr survey
Beijing Eye Study (adults)
Adults ≥40 years, urban + rural combined
22.9%
 C🟢 Tier A
2006
 Moderate prevalence. Selective treatment approach. Prioritise fast progressors and children with AL >24.5mm before age 10.
Beijing Eye Study, Jonas JB et al.
Guangzhou rural
Ages 5–18, rural area
5.0%
 C🟢 Tier A
2009
 Low prevalence. Screening focus. High outdoor time and lower academic pressure likely protective.
He M et al. Optom Vis Sci 2009
Shenzhen
School-age children; Guangdong 13-city aggregate; non-cycloplegic vision screeni
~70–80%
 NC🟡 Tier B
2019–2021
 Very high prevalence. Majority of school-age children affected. Early intervention before age 10 captures maximum treatment benefit.
⚠ Contextual — verify methodology
Guan J et al. J Med Internet Res 2023;25:e42203 (Guangdong 13-city real-world screening, n=large)
Wenzhou
Ages 6–18; non-cycloplegic school screening; CAMS-Wenzhou study
~75%
 NC🟡 Tier B
2019
 Very high prevalence. Majority of school-age children affected. Early intervention before age 10 captures maximum treatment benefit.
Xu L et al. Eye Vis 2021;8:19. PMID 33896441 (CAMS-Wenzhou, non-cycloplegic)
Qingdao (city-wide 2022–2024)
All school grades; district variation 45.9–64.7%; non-cycloplegic vision screeni
56–58%
 NC🟡 Tier B
2022–2024
 Very high prevalence. Majority of school-age children affected. Early intervention before age 10 captures maximum treatment benefit.
⚠ Contextual — verify methodology
Longitudinal Qingdao school screening study. BMC Public Health 2026 (exact PMID pending indexing)
Qingdao — Huangdao district
Urban district, all grades; non-cycloplegic screening
64.7%
 NC🟡 Tier B
2024
 Very high prevalence. Majority of school-age children affected. Early intervention before age 10 captures maximum treatment benefit.
BMC Public Health 2026 (Qingdao longitudinal 2022–2024, district-level sub-analysis)
Qingdao — Jiaozhou district
Rural/semi-urban district; non-cycloplegic screening
45.9%
 NC🟡 Tier B
2024
 Moderate-high prevalence. Active screening indicated. Risk factors (parental myopia, urban, high near-work) should trigger early biometry referral.
BMC Public Health 2026 (Qingdao longitudinal 2022–2024, district-level sub-analysis)
Shenyang
School children ages 6–18; non-cycloplegic cross-sectional
53.1%
 NC🟡 Tier B
2023
 Very high prevalence. Majority of school-age children affected. Early intervention before age 10 captures maximum treatment benefit.
Zhang D et al. Front Public Health 2023 (Shenyang school cross-sectional, NC refraction)
Anyang (rural Henan)
Ages 6–12 rural children; cycloplegic; population-based
28.3%
 C🟢 Tier A
2012
 Moderate-high prevalence. Active screening indicated. Risk factors (parental myopia, urban, high near-work) should trigger early biometry referral.
Li Z et al. (Anyang Eye Study) Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2012;56:3108–14
Handan (rural, Handan Eye Study adults)
Adults ≥30yr; rural Handan; cycloplegic; population-based
26.7%
 C🟢 Tier A
2009
 Moderate-high prevalence. Active screening indicated. Risk factors (parental myopia, urban, high near-work) should trigger early biometry referral.
Liang YB et al. (Handan Eye Study) Arch Ophthalmol 2009;127(10):1373–9. PMID 19822849
Tianjin
Ages 6–16; school-based during COVID-19 restriction period (2020); non-cyclopleg
51.8%
 NC🟡 Tier B
2020
 Very high prevalence. Majority of school-age children affected. Early intervention before age 10 captures maximum treatment benefit.
Li T et al. Br J Ophthalmol 2023;107(9):1306–12. PMID 35609945
Tokyo — elementary (6–11yr)
Tokyo school students; 2 schools; 1,416 students
76.5%
 NC🟡 Tier B
2017
 Very high prevalence. Majority of school-age children affected. Early intervention before age 10 captures maximum treatment benefit.
Hashimoto S et al. JAMA Ophthalmol 2019. PMC6696729
Tokyo — junior high (12–14yr)
Tokyo junior high students
94.9%
 NC🟡 Tier B
2017
 Extreme prevalence. Myopia is the expected state. Shift clinical focus from detection to progression management and axial length tracking at every visit.
Hashimoto S et al. JAMA Ophthalmol 2019
Tokyo Myopia Study — preschool
Ages 3–6, Tokyo; non-cycloplegic — higher than cycloplegic equivalent
60.2%
 NC🟡 Tier B
2019–2021
 Very high prevalence. Majority of school-age children affected. Early intervention before age 10 captures maximum treatment benefit.
Maruyama K et al. (Tokyo Myopia Study). J Clin Med 2022;11(15):4413. PMC9369597
Tokyo Myopia Study — elementary
Elementary school students, Tokyo; non-cycloplegic
82.2%
 NC🟡 Tier B
2019–2021
 Extreme prevalence. Myopia is the expected state. Shift clinical focus from detection to progression management and axial length tracking at every visit.
Maruyama K et al. (Tokyo Myopia Study). J Clin Med 2022;11(15):4413. PMC9369597
Seoul — conscripts age 19
19-year-old male military conscripts; VA screening + manifest refraction
96.5%
 VA🟡 Tier B
2012
 Extreme prevalence. Myopia is the expected state. Shift clinical focus from detection to progression management and axial length tracking at every visit.
Jung SK et al. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2012
Taipei — age 8yr (Taipei study)
8-year-olds; second-grade primary school
34.7%
 C🟢 Tier A
2016
 Moderate-high prevalence. Active screening indicated. Risk factors (parental myopia, urban, high near-work) should trigger early biometry referral.
Hsu CC et al. J Chin Med Assoc 2016
Southern China (school-age)
Ages 6–15yr; 5-yr follow-up
−0.43D/yr (SE); ~0.28mm AL/yr
 Rising fast; 65.5% at Grade 9 (Beijing)🟡 Tier B
Southern China longi
 Low prevalence. Screening focus. High outdoor time and lower academic pressure likely protective.
Beijing (school)
Annual incidence 7.8%
−0.17D/yr
 High myopia 2.6% by adolescence🟡 Tier B
Beijing Eye Study da
 Low prevalence. Screening focus. High outdoor time and lower academic pressure likely protective.
LAMP control group (Hong Kong Chinese)
Ages 4–12yr, control group (no Rx)
−0.79D/yr SE; 0.38mm AL/yr
 Higher dose = less progression🟡 Tier B
Yam JC et al. LAMP P
 Low prevalence. Screening focus. High outdoor time and lower academic pressure likely protective.
Taiwan annual longitudinal change
Taiwan national cohort data
−0.43D/yr (age 7–15)
 —🟡 Tier B
Cited PMC7803099; na
 Low prevalence. Screening focus. High outdoor time and lower academic pressure likely protective.
🌍 South Asia  ·  4 data points ▼
Delhi — urban children (CHVI-2)
Ages 5–15, urban New Delhi; population-based
7.4%
 C🟢 Tier A
2002
 Low prevalence. Screening focus. High outdoor time and lower academic pressure likely protective.
Murthy GVS et al. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2002
Delhi — North India Myopia Study
Urban school children, Delhi
13.1%
 C🟢 Tier A
2015
 Moderate prevalence. Selective treatment approach. Prioritise fast progressors and children with AL >24.5mm before age 10.
Saxena R et al. PLoS One 2015
Andhra Pradesh (APEDS rural)
Ages 7–15yr rural children; cycloplegic; population-based
4.1%
 C🟢 Tier A
2002
 Low prevalence. Screening focus. High outdoor time and lower academic pressure likely protective.
Dandona R et al. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2002;43(12):3585–90. PMID 12454029
Tamil Nadu — adults ≥39yr
Adults ≥39yr; population-based; cycloplegic; rural > urban (unusual)
17–31%
 C🟢 Tier A
2008
 Moderate prevalence. Selective treatment approach. Prioritise fast progressors and children with AL >24.5mm before age 10.
Prema R et al. Indian J Ophthalmol 2008;56(6):511–3. PMID 18974520
🌏 SE Asia  ·  1 data points ▼
Cambodia — school-age children (~12yr)
12-year-old school children; urban & rural combined; cycloplegic
6.0%
 C🟢 Tier A
2012
 Low prevalence. Screening focus. High outdoor time and lower academic pressure likely protective.
Gao Z et al. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2012;19(6):369–76. PMID 23009013
🌍 Europe  ·  5 data points ▼
Europe pooled (14 countries, n=128,012)
All ages; range 11.9% (Finland) to 49.7% (Sweden)
23.5%
 C🟢 Tier A
2025
 Moderate prevalence. Selective treatment approach. Prioritise fast progressors and children with AL >24.5mm before age 10.
Moreira-Rosário A et al. Lancet Reg Health Eur 2025;54:101319. PMC12266183
Europe children pooled (9 countries, 78,274 children)
Mean age 8.2 years; 9 European countries
7.2%
 C🟢 Tier A
2025
 Low prevalence. Screening focus. High outdoor time and lower academic pressure likely protective.
Ruiz-Pomeda A et al. Children 2025;12(6):771. PMC12191788
E3 Consortium — adult birth-cohort trend
European adults; birth decades 1910–1939 vs 1940–1979; non-cycloplegic
17.8% → 23.5%
 NC🟡 Tier B
2015
 Moderate prevalence. Selective treatment approach. Prioritise fast progressors and children with AL >24.5mm before age 10.
Williams KM et al. Ophthalmology 2015;122(7):1489–97. PMID 25983215 (E3 Consortium)
Sydney Myopia Study — European-descent children (age 12yr)
Age 12yr Sydney school children, European descent; cycloplegic
11.9%
 C🟢 Tier A
2003–2005
 Moderate prevalence. Selective treatment approach. Prioritise fast progressors and children with AL >24.5mm before age 10.
Rose KA et al. Ophthalmology 2008;115(8):1279–85. PMID 18061685
MOSAIC control group (Irish European children)
Ages 6–16yr, placebo group (2yr)
~−0.45D/yr SE; ~0.22mm AL/yr
 Slower than Asian trials; COVID confound🟡 Tier B
Loughman J et al. Ac
 Low prevalence. Screening focus. High outdoor time and lower academic pressure likely protective.
🌎 Americas  ·  5 data points ▼
National — adults ≥20yr (NHANES)
Adults ≥20 years; cycloplegic
33.1%
 C🟢 Tier A
1999–2004
 Moderate-high prevalence. Active screening indicated. Risk factors (parental myopia, urban, high near-work) should trigger early biometry referral.
Vitale S et al. Arch Ophthalmol 2009. NHANES 1999–2004
African American children (MEPEDS, LA)
Ages 6–72 months; Los Angeles County; cycloplegic
6.6%
 C🟢 Tier A
2010
 Low prevalence. Screening focus. High outdoor time and lower academic pressure likely protective.
Borchert M et al. PMC2815146
Hispanic children (MEPEDS, LA)
Ages 6–72 months; Los Angeles County
3.7%
 C🟢 Tier A
2010
 Low prevalence. Screening focus. High outdoor time and lower academic pressure likely protective.
Borchert M et al. PMC2815146
Non-Hispanic White children (MEPEDS)
Ages 6–72 months; preschool
1.2%
 C🟢 Tier A
2014
 Low prevalence. Screening focus. High outdoor time and lower academic pressure likely protective.
PMC3902090
PEDIG control group (US children)
Ages 5–12yr, placebo group
−0.78D/yr SE; ~0.28mm AL/yr
 Slower than LAMP; mixed US ethnicity🟡 Tier B
Repka MX et al. JAMA
 Low prevalence. Screening focus. High outdoor time and lower academic pressure likely protective.
🌍 Other Regions  ·  21 data points ▼
National — children ≤20
Ages 0–19 overall; 22% ages 5–9, 45% ages 10–14, 67% ages 15–19
36.6%
 C🟢 Tier A
2025
 Moderate-high prevalence. Active screening indicated. Risk factors (parental myopia, urban, high near-work) should trigger early biometry referral.
Pan W et al. Lancet Reg Health West Pac 2025;55:101484. n=218,794
National — urban school-age
School-age children (meta-analysis weighted)
52.7%
 C🟢 Tier A
2020
 Very high prevalence. Majority of school-age children affected. Early intervention before age 10 captures maximum treatment benefit.
Pan W et al. Lancet Reg Health West Pac 2025 (25-year nationwide dataset, n=5.1M)
National — high myopia ≤20
Children ≤20 (ages 0–19); rising; plateau projected ~2030
5.3%
 C🟢 Tier A
2025
 Low prevalence. Screening focus. High outdoor time and lower academic pressure likely protective.
Pan W et al. Lancet Reg Health West Pac 2025;55:101484. PMID 39931228
National — ≤14yr (claims database)
Children ≤14yr; 15M nationally insured; peak incidence age 8; diagnosis-based —
36.8%
 Claims🟡 Tier B
2020
 Moderate-high prevalence. Active screening indicated. Risk factors (parental myopia, urban, high near-work) should trigger early biometry referral.
Nationwide claims database. Ophthalmol Sci 2025;5(3). PMC11964618
National — young adult males (military conscripts)
Age-19 males; mandatory military physical exam VA screening; secondary synthesis
~80%
 VA🟡 Tier B
2023
 Extreme prevalence. Myopia is the expected state. Shift clinical focus from detection to progression management and axial length tracking at every visit.
⚠ Contextual — verify methodology
Gwon TG & Lee JH (2023); cited in National Academies of Sciences 2024 myopia report
HK — COVID acceleration (ages 6–7yr)
Ages 6–7yr; Hong Kong; prevalence rose markedly during 2020–2021 lockdown vs 201
Significant increase
 C🟢 Tier A
2020–2021
 Low prevalence. Screening focus. High outdoor time and lower academic pressure likely protective.
Zhang XJ et al. JAMA Ophthalmol 2023;141(3):239–47. PMID 36701153
National — age 7yr (2000)
7-year-olds; up from 5.8% in 1983
21%
 C🟢 Tier A
2000
 Moderate prevalence. Selective treatment approach. Prioritise fast progressors and children with AL >24.5mm before age 10.
Lin LL et al. Taiwan nationwide survey, 2000
National — age 12yr (2000)
12-year-olds; up from 36.7% in 1983
61%
 C🟢 Tier A
2000
 Very high prevalence. Majority of school-age children affected. Early intervention before age 10 captures maximum treatment benefit.
Lin LL et al. Taiwan 2000
National — age 15yr (2000)
15-year-olds; up from 64.2% in 1983
81%
 C🟢 Tier A
2000
 Extreme prevalence. Myopia is the expected state. Shift clinical focus from detection to progression management and axial length tracking at every visit.
Lin LL et al. Taiwan 2000
National — age 15yr
Singaporean-Chinese 15-year-olds; highest nationally reported in meta-analysis
86%
 C🟢 Tier A
Meta-analysis
 Extreme prevalence. Myopia is the expected state. Shift clinical focus from detection to progression management and axial length tracking at every visit.
Rudnicka AR et al. Br J Ophthalmol 2016
National — children 5–15yr meta-analysis
Ages 5–15 overall (40yr meta-analysis, 59 studies, n=286,000)
7.5%
 C🟢 Tier A
2020
 Low prevalence. Screening focus. High outdoor time and lower academic pressure likely protective.
Khanna RC et al. PLOS One 2020. PMC7571694
National — urban children trend
Urban 11–15yr — last decade estimate
~15%
 C🟢 Tier A
2020
 Moderate prevalence. Selective treatment approach. Prioritise fast progressors and children with AL >24.5mm before age 10.
Khanna RC et al. PLOS One 2020
National — ages 12–54yr trend
Ages 12–54; compared 1971–1975 vs 1999–2004
25%→41.6%
 C🟢 Tier A
2009
 Moderate-high prevalence. Active screening indicated. Risk factors (parental myopia, urban, high near-work) should trigger early biometry referral.
Vitale S et al. Arch Ophthalmol 2009
Australia — adults ≥49yr (Blue Mountains)
3,654 adults ≥49 years; Blue Mountains Eye Study
15.0%
 C🟢 Tier A
1999
 Moderate prevalence. Selective treatment approach. Prioritise fast progressors and children with AL >24.5mm before age 10.
Blue Mountains Eye Study; cited Global Epidemiology chapter
Iran — adults ≥40yr (Shahroud Eye Cohort)
Adults ≥40yr; Shahroud, north Iran; cycloplegic; population-based
30.2%
 C🟢 Tier A
2012
 Moderate-high prevalence. Active screening indicated. Risk factors (parental myopia, urban, high near-work) should trigger early biometry referral.
Hashemi H et al. Optom Vis Sci 2012;89(6):849–53. PMID 22552834 (Shahroud Eye Cohort)
Sub-Saharan Africa — children age 15yr (meta-analysis)
Age 15yr; Black African children; meta-analytic pooled estimate
5.5%
 C🟢 Tier A
Meta-analysis
 Low prevalence. Screening focus. High outdoor time and lower academic pressure likely protective.
Rudnicka AR et al. Br J Ophthalmol 2016;100(7):882–90. PMID 26567024
MiSight control group (Asian+other)
Ages 8–12yr (FDA label)
~0.30mm AL/yr (6-yr average)
 Myopia deepened ~−3D in 6yr in controls🟡 Tier B
Chamberlain P et al.
 Low prevalence. Screening focus. High outdoor time and lower academic pressure likely protective.
IMI 2025 fast progressor threshold
All school-age children
≥0.30mm AL/yr
 Trigger for treatment escalation🟡 Tier B
Bullimore MA et al.
Low prevalence. Screening focus. High outdoor time and lower academic pressure likely protective.
Finland (22-yr follow-up)
Mean 22-year progression from myopia onset
−1.43D (baseline) → −5.29D
 European slower than Asian progression🟡 Tier B
Finnish 240-child co
 Low prevalence. Screening focus. High outdoor time and lower academic pressure likely protective.
National projection 2050 (urban age 16–18)
Modelled; urban 16–18yr
81.5%
 Model🟡 Tier B
2050
 Extreme prevalence. Myopia is the expected state. Shift clinical focus from detection to progression management and axial length tracking at every visit.
Pan W et al. Lancet Reg Health West Pac 2025 (25-yr study, 5.1M participants)
National — projection 2050 (modelled)
India projected 2nd largest absolute myopia burden globally by 2050; modelled es
Rising
 Model🟡 Tier B
2050
 Low prevalence. Screening focus. High outdoor time and lower academic pressure likely protective.
Priscilla JJ & Verkicharla PK. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2021;41(3):623–31. PMID 33774834

Table 2 — Contextual Estimates & Projections

Tier C
The following estimates are derived from modelled projections or secondary synthesis. Do not directly compare with primary epidemiological studies in Table 1. Included for contextual awareness only.
LocationPrevalenceAge groupMethodYearNotesSource
📍 National projection 2050 (urban age 16–18)81.5%Modelled; urban 16–18yrModel2050Rural 16–18: 74.1%; urban 7–9yr: 27.1%Pan W et al. Lancet Reg Health West Pac 2025 (25-yr study, 5.1M participants)
National — projection 2050 (modelled)RisingIndia projected 2nd largest absolute myopia burden globally by 2050; modelled estimateModel2050⚠ Modelled projection — not a measured prevalence value; driven by urbanisation rate and population size assumptions; should not be compared directly with prevalence rowsPriscilla JJ & Verkicharla PK. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2021;41(3):623–31. PMID 33774834

From population to patient

Population prevalence provides epidemiological context — individual risk depends on age, axial length, growth rate, and family history. For country-specific deep dives: China · Japan · USA · India · Australia

Population prevalence provides context. Individual risk depends on axial length, age, growth rate, and family history.

Check individual risk →
Interactive Tool

Compare Myopia Prevalence Across Regions

Select up to 4 regions. Only primary-study rows included. Mixed methods are flagged.

⚠ Comparisons may include mixed methodologies (cycloplegic vs non-cycloplegic). Method labels shown in chart. Do not compare NC and C rows as equivalent prevalence.
Related Resources
→Myopia in China — 52.7% paediatric → →Myopia in Japan — 94.9% junior high → →Myopia in South Korea → →Myopia in India — rising rapidly → →Myopia in the United States → →Treatment options →