Country-level prevalence with study provenance, methodology labels, and population caveats — intended for clinical reference, not marketing simplification.
MT
MyopiaTracker Clinical Team
📋
How to read this page: Every figure is labeled with its source study, target population, refraction method, and year. Prevalence estimates from different studies are not directly comparable without reading these labels — the same country can show 30% or 80% depending on age group and measurement method. Ranges are shown where single-point estimates would be misleading. Click any country row to see full provenance and interpretation caveats.
◆ Tier 1 — Global pooled estimates
Population-weighted global averages from modelling studies. Not applicable to any specific country or subgroup.
~30%
Global myopia prevalence, 2020 pooled estimate
Holden et al. Ophthalmology 2016 Method: pooled modelling; no single method
~50%
Projected global prevalence by 2050 (~4.9 billion)
Holden et al. 2016 projection · Corroborated IMI 2025
~10%
Projected high myopia (≤−5D) by 2050 (~938 million)
Holden et al. 2016 · defined ≤−5.00D
~23%
Estimated global prevalence, 2000 (trend baseline)
Holden et al. 2016 backdated model
Projection note: The "2.6 billion" (2020) and "4.9 billion" (2050) figures are model projections from Holden et al. 2016, extrapolated forward using country-level datasets of heterogeneous quality. They are the best available estimates and should be cited with the Holden 2016 source — not as measured prevalence.
Why Methodology Labels Matter
This is the most commonly omitted caveat in myopia data pages, and the one clinicians notice first.
Refraction method: the largest source of between-study variation
Cycloplegic refraction
Reference standard for children
Ciliary muscle paralysed with drops (cyclopentolate or atropine) before measurement. Eliminates accommodation artefact. Required by IMI and WHO for paediatric prevalence studies. Yields higher prevalence — especially in young children where accommodation is strong.
Non-cycloplegic refraction
Common in surveys; underestimates true prevalence
Measured without drops. Active accommodation can obscure the manifest refraction. Underestimates myopia prevalence by 10–20 percentage points in paediatric populations compared to cycloplegic measurement in the same cohort.
Distance visual acuity screening
Overestimates — includes non-refractive causes
Used in military and school screenings. Flags reduced distance VA without specifying refractive cause. Overestimates myopia prevalence by including amblyopia, astigmatism, and other causes. Most South Korean military data uses this method.
Self-report / record-based
Lowest precision — used in general surveys
Used in national health surveys (e.g., adult NHANES component). Subjective; people confuse myopia with astigmatism or presbyopia. Appropriate for adult trend analysis; not suitable for paediatric prevalence work.
Practical implication: A non-cycloplegic study reporting 60% and a cycloplegic study reporting 70% in the same country are not necessarily contradictory — they may be measuring slightly different things. All figures on this page carry a method label for this reason.
◆ Tier 2 — Regional summaries
Pooled regional ranges from National Academies 2020 review and IMI 2025 Digest. These represent the spread across multiple country-level studies within each region — not a single study figure.
East Asia
70–90%
School-age to young adult; urban populations
Highest global burden. Driven by academic intensity, limited outdoor time, and genetic predisposition. Urban–rural gradient often 15–30pp within the same country.
South & Southeast Asia
20–60%
School-age children; varies by urbanisation
Wide range reflects heterogeneous urbanisation. India urban youth approaching 50–60%; rural estimates below 20%. Singapore diverges toward East Asian levels.
Europe
20–47%
Mixed; UK Biobank skews older (40–70yr)
UK Biobank (cycloplegic, n≈100k) reports ~24% for adults aged 40–70. Younger adult data suggests 35–47% due to secular trend. Rates increasing across all birth cohorts.
North America
25–42%
NHANES (cycloplegic, ≥12yr)
NHANES 1999–2004 reported ~33%. More recent estimates suggest 38–42% in younger cohorts. Asian-American subgroup approaches East Asian rates (>70% in some studies).
Sub-Saharan Africa
8–20%
Mixed; predominantly school surveys
Currently lowest global burden. Increasing with urbanisation. Data quality heterogeneous — fewer large-scale cycloplegic studies available than any other major region.
Oceania
10–35%
Sydney Myopia Study; mixed cohorts
Sydney Myopia Study (cycloplegic) is the key reference. European-descent children: ~10–20%. Non-European descent approaches East Asian rates where ethnicity-matched.
◆ Tier 3 — Country-specific data
These figures are country-specific — not globally generalisable. Each row reflects the population and method of its source study. Click any row to see full provenance, population details, and an explicit interpretation caveat for that data point.
Country
Prevalence (published range)
Age / population
Method
Trend
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Interpretation caveat:—
Prescription Severity Distribution
Among myopic individuals globally, the severity distribution below reflects population-weighted estimates from Holden et al. 2016 and Flitcroft 2012. East Asian populations skew substantially toward higher degrees; these global averages mask that regional gradient.
Global distribution among myopic eyes — modelled estimates (Holden 2016; Flitcroft 2012)
Low (−0.50 to −3.00D)
~52%global est.
Moderate (−3.00 to −6.00D)
~33%global est.
High (−6.00 to −9.00D)
~11%global est.
Very high (>−9.00D)
~4%global est.
East Asia
20–25%
of myopes reach ≥−6D
Europe
5–8%
of myopes reach ≥−6D
North America
4–7%
of myopes reach ≥−6D
Sources: Holden BA et al. Ophthalmology. 2016;123(5):1036–42 · Flitcroft DI. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2012;31(6):622–660. These are modelled estimates; confidence intervals are not available from the original pooled models.
Clinical Interpretation
What population-level prevalence data means for clinical practice.
Screening in high-prevalence regions
At 80–90% prevalence among East Asian school-age children, myopia is no longer a condition requiring detection-oriented screening — it is the expected state. The clinical question shifts from "does this child have myopia?" to "how fast is it progressing, and when should management begin?" This reframing drives the early-intervention consensus in IMI 2025.
Early onset compounds lifetime risk
Tideman et al. 2018 (JAMA Ophthalmol) showed onset before age 10 is the strongest predictor of reaching high myopia by adulthood. The population prevalence data contextualises why the IMI 2025 consensus shifted from "treat fast progressors" to "treat at diagnosis."
Axial length, not diopters, drives structural risk
Tideman et al. 2016 showed eyes above 26mm have ~5× the retinal detachment risk of eyes below 24mm. Country-level prescription prevalence data should be interpreted in the context of axial length burden — two countries with identical prescription distributions can have different structural risk profiles if their axial length distributions differ.
Treatment access mismatch
The highest-burden countries (East Asia) generally have the broadest access to evidence-based management options. The rapidly-increasing burden countries (India, sub-Saharan Africa) have the least clinical infrastructure and the least product availability. IMI 2025 identifies this access gap as a priority public health issue.
Treatment Product Availability by Region
Regulatory approval and market access as of April 2026. "Partial / off-label" indicates the product is available but used outside its approved indication, or requires compounding. Always verify with local regulatory bodies before prescribing.
Efficacy values: change in axial elongation vs untreated at ~2-year RCT endpoints — not final AL or cure rates. See MiSight® vs Stellest® comparison and Atropine outcomes for full trial references.
From population to patient
Population prevalence provides epidemiological context. Individual risk depends on axial length, age, growth rate, and family history. Enter patient data for a personalised projection.
Primary sources:
Holden BA et al. Global Prevalence of Myopia and High Myopia and Temporal Trends from 2000 through 2050. Ophthalmology. 2016;123(5):1036–1042. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.01.006
Morgan IG et al. The epidemics of myopia: Aetiology and prevention. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2018;62:134–149. doi:10.1016/j.preteyeres.2017.09.004
Flitcroft DI. The complex interactions of retinal, optical and environmental factors in myopia aetiology. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2012;31(6):622–660. doi:10.1016/j.preteyeres.2012.06.004
IMI 2025 Digest — Tahhan N et al. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2025;66(12):27.
National Academies of Sciences: Myopia: Seeing the Big Picture. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK550906
BMC Public Health China 2022: doi:10.1186/s12889-025-22906-x
Tideman JWL et al. Risk of uncorrectable visual impairment. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2016;134(12):1355–1363. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2016.4009
Tideman JWL et al. Axial length growth normative curves. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2018;136(9):961–968. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2018.1519
This page presents published epidemiological data ranges — not primary measurements by MyopiaTracker. Figures carry the uncertainty of their source studies; ranges are shown where single-point estimates would be misleading. This page does not constitute medical advice and should not substitute primary literature in grant applications or peer-reviewed publications. MyopiaTracker is a decision-support tool — not a diagnostic device.