Eye Exercises for Myopia Prevention and Control: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction

Myopia is a rapidly growing public health challenge, affecting more than 2 billion people currently—a number projected to grow to 5 billion by 2050, about half of the population worldwide.¹ In East and Southeast Asia, it has become an epidemic where more than 80% of young adults are myopic—a rapid rise from 20–30% in the mid-20^th century.^2,3 As it becomes more prevalent, it is also developing at a younger age.³ Early onset of myopia is strongly associated with high myopia in adulthood⁴—more than 50% of those with myopia onset at 7 or 8 years of age develop high myopia (versus less than 5% of those with onset at 12 years or older).⁵ High myopia is a common cause of vision impairment and blindness, as it heightens the risk of cataract, glaucoma, retinal detachment, and myopic macular degeneration.⁶ In economic impact, myopic macular degeneration and uncorrected myopia—the leading cause of vision impairment—were estimated to be responsible for about US$250 billion in lost global productivity in 2015.⁷ Myopia thus presents an enormous challenge for health services, from screening and providing spectacles to managing eye diseases.⁸

Because of its rapidly growing prevalence and its societal burden and personal costs (eg, reduced quality of life), myopia control has become a top public health priority in countries such as China. A national survey of ∼2.5 million Chinese students reported 52·7% of them to be myopic by the end of 2020: 80·5% in high school students, 71·1% in middle school students, 35·6% in primary school students, and 14·3% in six-year-olds.⁹ A large proportion of myopic schoolchildren have no refractive correction,¹⁰ which undermines their school learning and health—for example, according to a recent city-wide study the ratio was about 60% in a southern municipal city, Shantou;¹¹ the ratio was even higher in migrant children, estimated to be 85%.^12,13 China recently set up specific, numeric goals for preventing and controlling myopia—goals that became part of evaluation metrics for all provincial and local governments (see appendix p 1 for the timeline of recent national efforts). The target was to reduce the prevalence of myopia by at least 0·5% annually from 2018–2023 (for provinces with high prevalence, at least 1% annually), such that by 2030, the prevalence would be reduced to <70% in high school students, <60% in middle school students, <38% in primary school students, and 3% in six-year-olds. To achieve these goals, a suite of implementation requirements was made at the levels of family, school, medical institute, student, and government agency.^14,15 Prominent among these were compulsory eye exercises¹⁶ for schoolchildren, to be performed twice a day during school days—a policy that was dated to the 1960s, based on eye acupressure from traditional Chinese medicine (for an introduction of its history and rationale, see appendix p 2). This requirement was reaffirmed in response to the adverse impact of COVID-19 in a renewed concerted national plan issued in 2021.

This compulsory school policy has affected schoolchildren in mainland China for more than half a century. Yet, there has been no meta-analysis of controlled trials to evaluate the efficacy of eye exercises in myopia prevention or control. Long overdue, this important question acquires particular urgency in light of the recent nationwide policy goals and the negative impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Even though these goals are considered modest,¹⁷ progress has been stunted because of pandemic lockdown measures from 2020 to 2022.¹⁸ Home confinement has been associated with a substantial myopic shift, particularly in young children (aged 6–8 years);¹⁹ for example, from grade 2 to grade 3, myopia incidence almost doubled from late 2019 to late 2020 (20·8%, with lockdown) compared with the same period from 2018 to 2019 (13·3%, without lockdown).²⁰ The cumulative effects over the past three years (2020– 2022) are likely to be even more pronounced, creating unprecedented challenges for controlling myopia. Thus, it is now more important and urgent than ever to adopt effective, evidence-based measures to combat myopia development. A challenge in evaluating the effect of eye exercises, however, is that some studies on this topic are published in Chinese that are not indexed in English databases. Here, we aimed to evaluate the overall efficacy of eye exercises in preventing myopia and slowing its progression, by conducting a meta-analysis of studies that compared eye-exercise interventions with controls that did not use eye exercises. We searched nine Chinese and English databases from their inception to December 15, 2022 in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.²¹

Methods

Search strategy and selection criteria

We assessed the effectiveness of eye exercises against myopia onset or progression (figure 1). We searched nine databases, both Chinese (i.e., CNKI) and English (i.e., Web of Science, Google Scholar, EBSCO, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Science Direct, Scopus, and Embase), spanning from database inception to December 15, 2022. The search terms were “eye exercise” AND “myopia” in Chinese for the Chinese database and (“myopia” OR “short sightedness” OR “nearsightedness”) AND (“ocular gymnastics” OR “eye exercises” OR “eye exercise”) for the English databases (see appendix p 3 for a full list of the search terms used).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1: Study selection

Four coders independently screened the literature: WC and YW from database inception to April 30, 2020; FX and XG from May 1, 2020 to December 15, 2022. The screening started with titles and abstracts first and then the full text, using the following selection criteria. Specifically, to be included, papers must meet all five criteria: (1) available as a journal publication or a dissertation; (2) using eye exercises for intervention; (3) employing a control group that did not use eye exercises; (4) reporting at least one myopia-related indicator (e.g., axial length, visual acuity, diopter, or curative effects); and (5) reporting data that enabled effect size extraction or estimation. Discrepancies between coders were resolved through discussion. All excluded articles during the full-text screening stage are listed in the appendix (pp 4–9). RevMan (version 5.4) was used to screen and organize articles.

Results

The initial search yielded 1765 articles, of which 1754 were excluded: 423 were duplicates, 1223 did not have a control group, 16 did not have full-text, and 92 did not fulfill other inclusion criteria (as detailed in figure 1). The list of excluded articles during the full-text screening stage is provided in the appendix (pp 4–9). In total, 11 studies (9 in Chinese and 2 in English) were included in the meta-analysis.

The 11 included studies^22-32 were between 1974 and 2021; three were dissertations^23,24,29. All were controlled trials, including 2 non-randomized controlled trials and 9 randomized controlled trials (table). They assessed three types of outcomes: visual acuity, diopter, and curative effect. In total, the meta-analysis included 921 participants: 399 in eye-exercise groups and 522 in control groups. All studies were conducted in children except one (6 to 26 years old).

Overall, out of the 11 studies, nine had some concerns of bias in at least two domains, and two studies had high risk of bias in two domains (appendix p 10). Intercoder consistency in bias rating was high for the first five domains: random sequence generation (% of agreement=100%, PABAK=1, 95% CI 1–1, p<0·001); allocation concealment (% of agreement=95·5%, PABAK=0·90, 95% CI 0·67–1, p<0·001); blinding of participants and personnel (% of agreement=77·3%, PABAK=0·49, 95% CI 0·09–0·88, p=0·02); blinding of outcome assessment (% of agreement=90·9%, PABAK=0·80, 95% CI 0·49–1, p<0·01); incomplete outcome data (% of agreement=86·4%, PABAK=0·69, 95% CI 0·20–1, p=0·01).

Consistency was low for the final two domains: selective reporting (% of agreement=59·1%, PABAK=0·08, 95% CI –0·38 to 0·54, p=0·71) and other biases (% of agreement=54·5%, PABAK=–0·02, 95% CI –0·25 to 0·21, p=0·83). Thus, to better assess the effect of the eye-exercise intervention, sensitivity analysis was subsequently conducted with and without the two high-risk studies.^25,29

The results from the risk of bias assessments were corroborated by the funnel plots (appendix p 11), which are intended to evaluate the overall publication bias within each outcome measure: visual acuity (within-group and between-group), diopter, and curative effect. Owing to the small number of included studies and the somewhat subjective nature of funnel plots, the results can only be suggestive. Nevertheless, the patterns hint at the presence of publication bias: the distributions are asymmetrical, and the proportion of studies that lie outside the outer lines (where 95% of studies are expected to stay in the absence of biases and heterogeneity) is high, ranging from 22% (curative effect) to 100% (diopter).

Seven studies used visual acuity to measure myopia. Acuity was converted to a common decimal scale. The effect of the eye-exercise intervention was evaluated in one of two ways: 1) within-group changes following intervention (i.e., before and after the eye-exercise intervention); 2) between-group differences following different interventions (i.e., eye-exercise intervention vs. control). For within-group changes (figure 2A), data include 168 participants (218 eyes) from eight experiments. The duration of the intervention ranged from 5 minutes to 4 months. Across experiments, visual acuity declined after the eye-exercise intervention (SMD=–0·67, 95% CI – 1·28 to –0·07, Z=2·17, p=0·03). The study heterogeneity was high (I²=93%), and one study²³ was found to greatly contribute to the high heterogeneity. After excluding this study, the I² declined to 8%, and the combined effect size became not significant (SMD=–0·12, 95% CI – 0·28 to 0·04, Z=1·51, p=0·13). Another study²⁹ was found to be of high bias; after excluding it, the combined effect size was significant (SMD=–0·81, 95% CI –1·56 to –0·07, Z=2·13, p=0·03). The pattern was the same when both studies were excluded (SMD=–0·24, 95% CI –0·43 to – 0·06, Z=2·54, p=0·01). For between-group differences (figure 2A), data include 208 participants (406 eyes) in the eye-exercise groups and 208 participants (404 eyes) in the control groups from 16 different experiments. Before interventions, the two types of groups had comparable visual acuity in each of the experiments. After interventions, across experiments, visual acuity remained similar between the two types of groups (SMD=–0·50, 95% CI –1·16 to 0·16, Z=1·49, p=0·14), but was somewhat higher in the eye-exercise groups when the study with adult participants³² was excluded (SMD=–1·21, 95% CI –1·98 to –0·43, Z=3·04, p<0·01). The heterogeneity was high as well (I²=96%), but no single study contributed to the heterogeneity. One study²⁹ was found to be of high bias; after excluding it, the combined effect size remained not significant (SMD=–0·44, 95% CI –1·19 to 0·31, Z=1·14, p=0·25).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2: Forest plots for the four comparisons

The dashed line represents a null effect. SMD=standardized mean difference; CI=confidence intervals; n.a.=not applicable; Exp = Experiment; ^E=eyes (instead of participants); ^*=study that contributes to high heterogeneity; ^#=study of high-risk of bias. In the Hayashi & Du (2021) study, Experiments 1 and 2 refer to acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term) experiments, respectively; letters a, b and c refer respectively to comparisons with the no-intervention control, facial massage roller intervention, and automated eye massage intervention. In the Wang et al (2019) study, letters a, b and c refer respectively to comparisons with the eye muscle massage, head and neck massage and scraping, and combined intervention. In the Wu (2013) study, letters a, b and c refer respectively to comparisons with the point massage, Dazhui vibration intervention, and combined intervention.

Two studies used diopter to measure myopia (figure 2A). Data include 159 eyes in the eye-exercise groups and 162 eyes in the control groups from four experiments. Across experiments, the effects of interventions did not differ from each other (SMD=–1·74, 95% CI – 6·27 to 2·79, Z=0·75, p=0·45). The study heterogeneity was high (I²=99%), but no single study could be identified to have contributed to it.

Seven studies reported curative effects that evaluated relative risk (figure 2B). Data include 121 participants (309 eyes) in the eye-exercise groups and 117 participants (327 eyes) in the control groups from nine experiments. Across experiments, eye exercises had a higher curative effect than control (RR=0·40, 95% CI 0·23–0·71, Z=3·13, p<0·01). Again, the study heterogeneity was high (I²=94%), but no single study could be identified to have contributed to it. One study²⁵ was found to be of high bias; after excluding it, the combined effect size was reduced but remained significant (RR=0·49, 95% CI 0·30–0·79, Z=2·94, p<0·01).

Discussion

Eye-exercise interventions were not effective in preventing or controlling the progression of myopia, as indicated by changes in visual acuity and diopter. While there was a reduced risk in eye-exercise groups compared to the control, these studies were highly heterogeneous and might be subject to publication bias. They were also infected with five major weaknesses: a lack of measurement of axial length; small sample sizes (most with n<100 per group); potential biases; failure to consider side effects; and without including established effective interventions as control. The weaknesses of these studies and the lack of empirical evidence do not support the continued use of eye exercises to prevent or control myopia in schoolchildren. Policymakers therefore should abandon this longstanding practice and instead seek evidence-based solutions that are available.

The current meta-analysis examines controlled trials to provide causal evidence on the efficacy of eye exercises in controlling myopia. This builds upon previous indirect and observational evidence, such as the fact that in mainland China, despite the mandatory nationwide practice of eye exercises, the rate of myopia among young adults has steadily increased from 20–30% in the 1980s to 80–90% today, similarly to other East Asian regions and Singapore without the eye-exercise policy.³ Indeed, the prevalence of myopia is much higher in China than in many regions without such intervention (eg, Australia). Within China, the myopia rate in urban students, who have much better compliance with the policy, is also much higher compared with rural students³³—roughly 96.6% of the urban students regularly perform eye exercises,³⁴ compared with 15% in rural students.³⁵ Other observational studies have also produced little evidence for the effectiveness of eye exercises.³⁶ For example, one study found a modest effect on relieving near vision symptoms but no effect on reducing myopia,³⁴ a pattern contradicted by a different study;³⁵ another study found a statistically significant but probably clinically insignificant effect in reducing accommodative lag;³⁷ and still another study found no association between eye exercises and the risk of myopia onset.³⁸

In contrast, studies have provided strong support for other interventions to control myopia. Robust evidence indicates that spending time outdoors can protect against developing myopia, in interventions directed at schools³⁹ and at families,^40,41 even though its exact mechanisms of action and its effect on delaying the progression of myopia are not yet settled.⁴² A distinct advantage of outdoor-time intervention is the added benefit of promoting an active lifestyle that helps to enhance mental and physical health more generally. Interventions targeting outdoor time agree with our current understanding of the etiology of myopia: changes in lifestyle over the past several decades, particularly decreased time spent outdoors, likely have played a major role.³ Other risk factors, like increased near-work time and education pressure, may also contribute by reducing outdoor time.³ Outdoor-time intervention can also be combined with non-lifestyle interventions, such as low-dose atropine and optical interventions, which have been shown to slow myopia progression.⁴³

Given the lack of supporting evidence for the continued use of eye exercises and the robust evidence for the effectiveness of interventions such as increased time outdoors, it becomes challenging to justify maintaining the eye-exercise policy. One may argue that students did not perform eye exercises properly—not knowing the correct pressure, the correct location of acupoints, or the basic massage manipulation.³⁸ But this misses the larger issue: if after more than 50 years of implementation and most students still cannot do it properly, should we fault the students or the intervention? One may also claim that while eye exercises may not help myopia, they could reduce eye fatigue, or at least pose no harm anyway. This argument overlooks potential inflammation and disease spreading from dirty fingers, as well as the missed opportunity to engage in health-promoting activities such as outdoor play or rest. To justify maintaining the status quote, then, requires robust evidence to show the effectiveness of eye exercises in controlling myopia, ideally from studies that measure axial length, use large sample sizes, minimize biases, examine side effects, and use outdoor time as a control intervention.

Our study has both strengths and limitations. Strengths include the comprehensive evaluation of studies published in both Chinese and English up until December 15, 2022, and the use of controlled trials for more robust causal inference. Limitations include high heterogeneity among studies, the possibility of publication bias, and weaknesses in individual studies such as small sample sizes. Additionally, insufficient studies precluded subgroup analysis for different age groups and for separate evaluations of myopia prevention and control.

In conclusion, eye exercises are not effective in preventing myopia or slowing its progression, as measured by changes in visual acuity and diopter; a small positive effect is observed in curative effects. Given the limited evidence of their effectiveness and the strong evidence supporting alternative interventions such as increased outdoor time, and considering the adverse impacts of COVID-19 lockdown measures in mainland China over the past three years, it is time for policymakers to retire the eye-exercise policy and redirect the time and resources saved toward evidence-based interventions—for the betterment of schoolchildren’s health and the success of myopia control policies.

Contributors

ZL conceived and designed the study. WC and FX searched the literature and screened articles. FX and WC analyzed the data, constructed the table, and drew the figures under the supervision of ZL. ZL wrote the manuscript. FX and WC accessed and verified the data. FX and WC contributed equally to this work. Yichen Wu and Xinran Ge contributed to the literature search, screening, and coding; Xiani Jia contributed to the editing of a preliminary draft of methods and results. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript and were responsible for the decision to submit the manuscript.

Declaration of interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Data sharing

Extracted data and code are available online (https://osf.io/dr5jk/); additional requests may be made to the corresponding author.