Skip to content
EvidenceHelixEvidenceLib · Scientific Encyclopedia
⌘ K

Scientific library

EvidenceLib encyclopediaAll articles A–Z2,835Open textbooks209Open-access articles1,406Cancer study catalog458How it is made

My workspace this browser

Saved pages0Notes & annotations0

Recently viewed

Explore by field

Cancer and Oncology182Genetics and Genomics170Neuroscience185Cardiovascular Medicine180Immunology142Pharmacology173Molecular Biology161Infectious Diseases150Rare and Inherited Diseases181Clinical Research173Anatomy and Physiology613Drugs and Chemicals621Psychiatry and Psychology185Public Health and Nutrition178Diagnostics and Medical Technology125Respiratory Medicine113Digestive System and Liver91Metabolism and Endocrine Disease177Bones, Joints, Muscles and Skin213Kidney, Urology and Women's Health173Eye, Ear, Nose and Throat55
Plans & pricingCompare EvidenceHelix workspace plans
Library›EvidenceLib›Eye, Ear, Nose and Throat›Asthenopia

Continue where you left off ()

Explore more with EvidenceHelix Workspace

Compare studies, analyze evidence and create research reports with premium tools.

Explore Researcher plans

Research reading room

Asthenopia

Eye, Ear, Nose and Throat · NLM MeSH · updated 2026-11-04 · version 1

Citations verified against PubMedNot yet clinician-reviewed10 referencesApproximately 5 min read

Term generally used to describe complaints related to refractive error, ocular muscle imbalance, including pain or aching around the eyes, burning and itchiness of the eyelids, ocular fatigue, and headaches.

Table of Contents

1. Definition2. Research landscape3. Reading the evidence4. Open-access studies5. Key reviews6. References7. About this article

Definition and research guide

This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.

Content available: 4 complete abstracts (956 words), 10 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.

Definition

Term generally used to describe complaints related to refractive error, ocular muscle imbalance, including pain or aching around the eyes, burning and itchiness of the eyelids, ocular fatigue, and headaches.

Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.

Also known as: Eyestrain; Fatigue, Visual; Visual Fatigue; Eye Fatigue; Fatigue, Eye.

Where it fits in the MeSH classification

Broader topics
Eye Diseases

Research landscape

PubMed indexes 1,123 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Asthenopia” (counts retrieved 2026-11-04). 211 of them (18.8%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is through 1999 with 510 records.

Reviews account for 86 records (7.7%) and meta-analyses for 6. Randomized controlled trials number 53 (4.7%) as a share of all records on the topic.

PubMed records by publication periodthrough 1999: 510 records; 2000-2009: 176 records; 2010-2019: 226 records; 2020 onward: 211 records510through 19991762000-20092262010-20192112020 onward
Records in PubMed indexed with this heading, by publication period. Real counts from NCBI E-utilities; the final period covers only part of the current year. Volume reflects how much has been published, not how strong the evidence is.
Show the data
PeriodRecords
through 1999510
2000-2009176
2010-2019226
2020 onward211
Share of records by publication typeReviews: 7.7 percent; Meta-analyses: 0.5 percent; Randomized controlled trials: 4.7 percentReviews7.7% (86)Meta-analyses0.5% (6)Randomized controlled trials4.7% (53)
Share of all PubMed records on this heading that carry each publication type. Types overlap with other records, so the shares do not sum to 100%.
Publication-type chart data
Publication types among 1,123 PubMed records
TypeRecordsShare
Reviews867.7%
Meta-analyses60.5%
Randomized controlled trials534.7%

Method: PubMed query "Asthenopia"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-11-04.

Reading the evidence in eye, ear, nose and throat

Eye, hearing, nose and throat studies rely on specialist tests (visual acuity, eye pressure, audiograms, scopes) and on patient-reported symptoms, which vary between people and with age. Some conditions improve without treatment, so comparison groups matter. Nothing on this page is advice about diagnosis or treatment; sudden loss of sight or hearing needs urgent care from a qualified clinician. Check how the outcome was tested, the age of the people studied and how long they were followed.

Evidence from open-access studies

These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.

Study comparison — selected abstracts, not a systematic review
Study / authorsYearSource label / designEurope PMC citationsLicence / source
Computer vision syndrome among computer office workers in a developing country: an evaluation of prevalence and risk factors
Ranasinghe P, Wathurapatha WS, Perera YS, Lamabadusuriya DA, Kulatunga S, Jayawardana N, et al.
2016Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
147cc by
PMID 26956624 · DOI · PMC4784392
E-readers and visual fatigue
Benedetto S, Drai-Zerbib V, Pedrotti M, Tissier G, Baccino T
2013Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
56cc by
PMID 24386252 · DOI · PMC3873942
Visualisation ergonomics and robotic surgery
Wong SW, Crowe P
2023Review article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
50cc by
PMID 37204648 · DOI · PMC10492791
Clinical manifestations, prevalence, and risk factors of asthenopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Song F, Liu Y, Zhao Z, Shang X, Wang Y, Lai M, et al.
2026Meta-analysis
Design not recorded in structured metadata
2cc by
PMID 41648943 · DOI · PMC12879263

Computer vision syndrome among computer office workers in a developing country: an evaluation of prevalence and risk factors [1]

Research article Ranasinghe P, Wathurapatha WS, Perera YS, Lamabadusuriya DA, Kulatunga S, Jayawardana N, et al. · · 2016 · cited 147 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
BackgroundComputer vision syndrome (CVS) is a group of visual symptoms experienced in relation to the use of computers.
Closing excerpt
The factors associated with the severity of CVS were the duration of occupation and presence of pre-existing eye disease.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (350 words)

BackgroundComputer vision syndrome (CVS) is a group of visual symptoms experienced in relation to the use of computers. Nearly 60 million people suffer from CVS globally, resulting in reduced productivity at work and reduced quality of life of the computer worker. The present study aims to describe the prevalence of CVS and its associated factors among a nationally-representative sample of Sri Lankan computer workers.MethodsTwo thousand five hundred computer office workers were invited for the study from all nine provinces of Sri Lanka between May and December 2009. A self-administered questionnaire was used to collect socio-demographic data, symptoms of CVS and its associated factors. A binary logistic regression analysis was performed in all patients with 'presence of CVS' as the dichotomous dependent variable and age, gender, duration of occupation, daily computer usage, pre-existing eye disease, not using a visual display terminal (VDT) filter, adjusting brightness of screen, use of contact lenses, angle of gaze and ergonomic practices knowledge as the continuous/dichotomous independent variables. A similar binary logistic regression analysis was performed in all patients with 'severity of CVS' as the dichotomous dependent variable and other continuous/dichotomous independent variables.ResultsSample size was 2210 (response rate-88.4%). Mean age was 30.8 ± 8.1 years and 50.8% of the sample were males. The 1-year prevalence of CVS in the study population was 67.4%. Female gender (OR: 1.28), duration of occupation (OR: 1.07), daily computer usage (1.10), pre-existing eye disease (OR: 4.49), not using a VDT filter (OR: 1.02), use of contact lenses (OR: 3.21) and ergonomics practices knowledge (OR: 1.24) all were associated with significantly presence of CVS. The duration of occupation (OR: 1.04) and presence of pre-existing eye disease (OR: 1.54) were significantly associated with the presence of 'severe CVS'.ConclusionsSri Lankan computer workers had a high prevalence of CVS. Female gender, longer duration of occupation, higher daily computer usage, pre-existing eye disease, not using a VDT filter, use of contact lenses and higher ergonomics practices knowledge all were associated with significantly with the presence of CVS. The factors associated with the severity of CVS were the duration of occupation and presence of pre-existing eye disease.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 26956624 · DOI · PMC4784392

E-readers and visual fatigue [2]

Research article Benedetto S, Drai-Zerbib V, Pedrotti M, Tissier G, Baccino T · · 2013 · cited 56 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
The mass digitization of books is changing the way information is created, disseminated and displayed.
Closing excerpt
The absence of differences between E-ink and paper suggests that, concerning visual fatigue, the E-ink is indeed very similar to the paper.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (166 words)

The mass digitization of books is changing the way information is created, disseminated and displayed. Electronic book readers (e-readers) generally refer to two main display technologies: the electronic ink (E-ink) and the liquid crystal display (LCD). Both technologies have advantages and disadvantages, but the question whether one or the other triggers less visual fatigue is still open. The aim of the present research was to study the effects of the display technology on visual fatigue. To this end, participants performed a longitudinal study in which two last generation e-readers (LCD, E-ink) and paper book were tested in three different prolonged reading sessions separated by--on average--ten days. Results from both objective (Blinks per second) and subjective (Visual Fatigue Scale) measures suggested that reading on the LCD (Kindle Fire HD) triggers higher visual fatigue with respect to both the E-ink (Kindle Paperwhite) and the paper book. The absence of differences between E-ink and paper suggests that, concerning visual fatigue, the E-ink is indeed very similar to the paper.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 24386252 · DOI · PMC3873942

Visualisation ergonomics and robotic surgery [3]

Review article Wong SW, Crowe P · · 2023 · cited 50 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
Stereopsis may be an advantage of robotic surgery.
Closing excerpt
Experienced robotic surgeons can use visual cues like tissue deformation and surgical tool information as surrogates for haptic feedback.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (117 words)

Stereopsis may be an advantage of robotic surgery. Perceived robotic ergonomic advantages in visualisation include better exposure, three-dimensional vision, surgeon camera control, and line of sight screen location. Other ergonomic factors relating to visualisation include stereo-acuity, vergence-accommodation mismatch, visual-perception mismatch, visual-vestibular mismatch, visuospatial ability, visual fatigue, and visual feedback to compensate for lack of haptic feedback. Visual fatigue symptoms may be related to dry eye or accommodative/binocular vision stress. Digital eye strain can be measured by questionnaires and objective tests. Management options include treatment of dry eye, correction of refractive error, and management of accommodation and vergence anomalies. Experienced robotic surgeons can use visual cues like tissue deformation and surgical tool information as surrogates for haptic feedback.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 37204648 · DOI · PMC10492791

Clinical manifestations, prevalence, and risk factors of asthenopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis [4]

Meta-analysis Song F, Liu Y, Zhao Z, Shang X, Wang Y, Lai M, et al. · · 2026 · cited 2 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
BackgroundThis meta-analysis aims to determine the clinical manifestations, prevalence, and risk factors of asthenopia across diverse populations.
Closing excerpt
RegistrationPROSPERO: CRD42024536841.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (323 words)

BackgroundThis meta-analysis aims to determine the clinical manifestations, prevalence, and risk factors of asthenopia across diverse populations.MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed up to April 2024 for studies published within the last five years on asthenopia, without language or design restrictions. Reference lists were also reviewed. The study quality was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to calculate proportions, prevalence rates, odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsOverall, 63 studies were included. The pooled prevalence of asthenopia detected via questionnaires or symptom report was 51% (95% CI = 50%, 52%). Subgroup analyses showed high prevalence among digital device users (90%) and computer workers (77%). During the COVID-19 pandemic, prevalence rose among adults (39%-45%), university students (36%-57%), and school-aged children (45%-64%). The most frequent ocular symptoms were eye tiredness (65%, 95% CI = 46%, 84%), eye strain (47%, 95% CI = 37%, 58%), and burning/irritation (43%, 95% CI = 35%, 51%). Musculoskeletal symptoms, including neck pain (45%, 95% CI = 28%, 62%) and shoulder pain (30%, 95% CI = 12%, 48%) were also prevalent. Neuropsychological symptoms included headache (50%, 95% CI = 41%, 59%) and difficulty concentrating (44%, 95% CI = 32%, 56%). Risk factors included short sleep duration (OR = 1.28; 95% CI = 1.04, 1.57), prior eye disease (OR = 2.59; 95% CI = 1.43, 4.69), prolonged screen time (OR = 1.15; 95% CI = 1.09, 1.21), and ambient conditions like air conditioning use (OR = 23.02; 95% CI = 4.94, 107.18). Protective measures included anti-glare filters (OR = 0.34; 95% CI = 0.19, 0.64), regular breaks (OR = 0.21; 95% CI = 0.09, 0.51), and computer use knowledge (OR = 0.20; 95% CI = 0.13, 0.30).ConclusionsAsthenopia is prevalent across diverse populations, characterised by a wide range of symptoms and influenced by modifiable risk factors. Our findings support a unified definition to improve clinical recognition and offer preliminary evidence to help shape future research on preventive strategies.RegistrationPROSPERO: CRD42024536841.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 41648943 · DOI · PMC12879263

Key reviews and meta-analyses

The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.

  • Research article Computer vision syndrome: a review [5]
    Blehm C, Vishnu S, Khattak A, Mitra S, Yee RW · Surv Ophthalmol · 2005 · cited 352 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Computer vision syndrome: a review of ocular causes and potential treatments [6]
    Rosenfield M · Ophthalmic Physiol Opt · 2011 · cited 293 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Ocular and visual discomfort associated with smartphones, tablets and computers: what we do and do not know [7]
    Jaiswal S, Asper L, Long J, Lee A, Harrison K, Golebiowski B · Clin Exp Optom · 2019 · cited 151 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Management of digital eye strain [8]
    Coles-Brennan C, Sulley A, Young G · Clin Exp Optom · 2019 · cited 142 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article TFOS Lifestyle: Impact of the digital environment on the ocular surface [9]
    Wolffsohn JS, Lingham G, Downie LE, Huntjens B, Inomata T, Jivraj S, et al. · Ocul Surf · 2023 · cited 103 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Digital Screen Use and Dry Eye: A Review [10]
    Mehra D, Galor A · Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila) · 2020 · cited 74 times (Europe PMC)

References

  1. Ranasinghe P, Wathurapatha WS, Perera YS, Lamabadusuriya DA, Kulatunga S, Jayawardana N, et al.. Computer vision syndrome among computer office workers in a developing country: an evaluation of prevalence and risk factors. . 2016. PMID 26956624 · DOI · PMC4784392
  2. Benedetto S, Drai-Zerbib V, Pedrotti M, Tissier G, Baccino T. E-readers and visual fatigue. . 2013. PMID 24386252 · DOI · PMC3873942
  3. Wong SW, Crowe P. Visualisation ergonomics and robotic surgery. . 2023. PMID 37204648 · DOI · PMC10492791
  4. Song F, Liu Y, Zhao Z, Shang X, Wang Y, Lai M, et al.. Clinical manifestations, prevalence, and risk factors of asthenopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. . 2026. PMID 41648943 · DOI · PMC12879263
  5. Blehm C, Vishnu S, Khattak A, Mitra S, Yee RW. Computer vision syndrome: a review. Surv Ophthalmol. 2005. PMID 15850814 · DOI
  6. Rosenfield M. Computer vision syndrome: a review of ocular causes and potential treatments. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2011. PMID 21480937 · DOI
  7. Jaiswal S, Asper L, Long J, Lee A, Harrison K, Golebiowski B. Ocular and visual discomfort associated with smartphones, tablets and computers: what we do and do not know. Clin Exp Optom. 2019. PMID 30663136 · DOI
  8. Coles-Brennan C, Sulley A, Young G. Management of digital eye strain. Clin Exp Optom. 2019. PMID 29797453 · DOI
  9. Wolffsohn JS, Lingham G, Downie LE, Huntjens B, Inomata T, Jivraj S, et al.. TFOS Lifestyle: Impact of the digital environment on the ocular surface. Ocul Surf. 2023. PMID 37062428 · DOI
  10. Mehra D, Galor A. Digital Screen Use and Dry Eye: A Review. Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila). 2020. PMID 33181547 · DOI

About this article

Sources
NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
Verification
Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-11-04; title, year and DOI matched.
Review state
automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
Version
1, last updated 2026-11-04.

See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.

Evidence strength

EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.

Included with the Researcher plan

Reading every article stays free. This computed view is part of the paid plans.

See plans Sign in

Your notes

Notes and highlights stay in this browser only; they are not sent to EvidenceHelix.

Related research topics

  • EyeAnatomy and Physiology
  • Meibomian Gland DysfunctionEye, Ear, Nose and Throat
  • AphakiaEye, Ear, Nose and Throat
  • AstigmatismEye, Ear, Nose and Throat
  • Contrast SensitivityPsychiatry and Psychology
  • Visual AcuityPsychiatry and Psychology

All 51 articles in Eye, Ear, Nose and Throat →

At a glance

1,123
PubMed records on this heading
19%
published since 2020
86
review articles
53
randomized trials
10
verified references below

Counts come from PubMed on 2026-11-04; they show how much has been written, not how strong the evidence is.

Related topics See all →

  • EyeAnatomy and Physiology
  • Meibomian Gland DysfunctionEye, Ear, Nose and Throat
  • AphakiaEye, Ear, Nose and Throat
  • AstigmatismEye, Ear, Nose and Throat
  • Contrast SensitivityPsychiatry and Psychology

My notes & annotations (0)

Nothing yet. Select text and press Highlight, or write a note in the Notes tab. Stored in this browser only.

Sources

  • NLM MeSH record ↗
  • PubMed search used ↗

EvidenceLib is a research-education resource, not medical advice. It does not diagnose, prescribe or recommend starting, stopping or changing any treatment. Talk to a qualified clinician about your own situation. Methods, sources and licences · Rights and removal requests · Legal · Support