CHAMGAP
APPROVEDReviewed and approved by the Chamgap Editorial Team (2026-08-05). The draft was written by AI, the existence of all 1 cited sources was verified at the original page, and the verdict passed blind grading and adversarial audit. Methodology v0.6.
Verdict No. 2257 · Search date 2026-08-05 · Methodology v0.6

Digital screen time,
does it really help with Higher myopia risk in children and adolescents?

30-Second Summary
C
Evidence Grade C · 52 · Safety acceptable
Screen time was weakly associated with myopia, but incident and causal effects remain uncertain
No acute serious harm from screen time itself was established in this verdict. Breaks from prolonged near work and adequate outdoor time may still be reasonable.
What the
research shows
The grade is C. Across 45 observational studies and 335,524 participants, each extra daily hour was associated with myopia OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.13-1.30, but heterogeneity was 99%. Prevalence was positive, whereas incident myopia was not established, OR 1.40, 0.84-2.33. Screen time was mainly self- or parent-reported, so the estimate is not a clean causal effect.
What the
ads claim
This association does not fully separate screen exposure from less outdoor time or other near work. Verdict 2191 is A with 82 points for an outdoor-time intervention; this verdict concerns a different exposure and observational question.
*

Useful facts when choosing a product

  • Screen exposure was mainly self- or parent-reported; continuous objective device logs were uncommon.
  • Myopia definitions ranged from cycloplegic refraction to other examination methods or self-report.
  • Verdict 2191 is A with 82 points for outdoor-time intervention, not screen exposure.
Gap Measurement · Verdict 2257 · C 52
What advertising claims
What independent, higher-quality research supports
△ GAP
01

What the research actually shows

The prospectively registered review, PROSPERO CRD42024514134, pooled 45 studies and 335,524 participants. Per additional daily hour, overall OR was 1.21, 95% CI 1.13-1.30; prevalence was 1.19, 1.10-1.28; progression was 1.54, 1.01-2.36; and incidence was 1.40, 0.84-2.33. Incidence came from two studies with 7,578 participants; the exact event count was not reported in the original meta-analysis and could not be verified. I-squared was 99.0%. The funnel plot was slightly asymmetric, but Egger intercept was 2.53 with P=.11. Prevalence data were cross-sectional, and studies varied in screen questionnaires, device type, myopia definition, and adjustment for near work and outdoor time.

02

Why this is classified as C (52)

Positive overall, prevalence, and progression odds ratios are offset by inconclusive incidence, 99% heterogeneity, exposure misclassification, and residual confounding, giving C with 52 points.

Counterpoint. C describes limited certainty for the harm claim, not medium harm. Whether reducing screens prevents incident myopia has not been established in a randomized intervention.

Rejudgment record. Cross-check applied — Separated overall, prevalence, progression, and incidence odds ratios as binary event endpoints and incorporated self-reported exposure, cross-sectional prevalence data, confounding, and 99% heterogeneity

Scoring profile behind this grade
EndpointHHard endpoint - actual events such as death
ReplicationR1Single confirmatory trial
IndependenceI1Mixed funding sources
Effect sizeE+Meets the clinically important threshold

The scoring table and the verdict agree (C).

Sub-claim grades by effect

This ingredient is marketed for several effects. A single overall grade blends strong and weak claims together, so each effect is graded separately here. The overall grade reflects the strongest disconfirming or core claim.

Effect (sub-claim)GradeBasis
Higher odds of prevalent myopiaCThe per-hour OR was 1.19 (1.10-1.28).
Higher incidence of new myopiaDOR 1.40 (0.84-2.33) included the null.
Prevention of myopia by reducing screens?This review did not test a randomized screen-reduction intervention.

Cross-check — Codex and Claude

This verdict was drafted by Codex through literature review and source-existence checks, cross-checked through blind grading and adversarial audit, and settled by reapplying the methodology boundary rules. Cases with split grades were resolved through rejudgment.
03

Evidence Table

StudyDesignSampleFundingEndpointResultWeight
Study 1Dose-response meta-analysis of observational studies335,5242024 scientific promotion program of Jeju National UniversityMyopia prevalence, incidence, and progressionOverall per-hour OR 1.21 (1.13-1.30), I-squared 99%; incidence OR 1.40 (0.84-2.33)Small observational association in a large sample
§

Receipt — 1 References

All 1 cited sources were verified for existence at the original page (as of 2026-08-05).

Ha A, Lee YJ, Lee M, Shim SR, Kim YK. JAMA Netw Open. 2025;8(2):e2460026. PMID: 39982728. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.60026.
checked
Draft and rewrite: Codex (AI) · Verification: Codex blind grading and adversarial audit · Final adjudication: Claude
Reviewed and approved: Chamgap Editorial Team · Approval date: 2026-08-05 · Corrections: none

Cite this verdict

Digital screen time x child and adolescent myopia Evidence Grade C card
[Chamgap] Digital screen time x child and adolescent myopia — Evidence Grade C·52. 1 cited sources checked. Source: https://chamgap.com/en/verdicts/eye/digital-screen-time-child-adolescent-myopia/ · CC BY 4.0

CC BY 4.0 — free to use with attribution; do not distort grades, numbers, or verdict meaning.

!

What this document does and does not do

Chamgap is an information source. It reports what research has and has not confirmed; it does not tell readers what to take or buy. That decision belongs to readers and, when needed, medical or legal professionals. This verdict reflects literature available up to the search date and may change as new research appears. Nothing here is medical advice.