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 (978 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
A refractive error in which rays of light entering the eye parallel to the optic axis are brought to a focus behind the retina, as a result of the eyeball being too short from front to back. It is also called farsightedness because the near point is more distant than it is in emmetropia with an equal amplitude of accommodation. (Dorland, 27th ed)
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: Farsightedness; Hypermetropia.
Where it fits in the MeSH classification
- Broader topics
- Refractive Errors
Research landscape
PubMed indexes 3,777 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Hyperopia” (counts retrieved 2026-11-04). 588 of them (15.6%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is through 1999 with 1,178 records.
Reviews account for 193 records (5.1%) and meta-analyses for 21. Randomized controlled trials number 63 (1.7%) as a share of all records on the topic. Randomized trials make up only a small share of this literature, so much of what is known comes from laboratory, observational or descriptive work.
Show the data
| Period | Records |
|---|---|
| through 1999 | 1,178 |
| 2000-2009 | 1,041 |
| 2010-2019 | 970 |
| 2020 onward | 588 |
Publication-type chart data
| Type | Records | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Reviews | 193 | 5.1% |
| Meta-analyses | 21 | 0.6% |
| Randomized controlled trials | 63 | 1.7% |
Method: PubMed query "Hyperopia"[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 / authors | Year | Source label / design | Europe PMC citations | Licence / source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| APLP2 Regulates Refractive Error and Myopia Development in Mice and Humans | 2015 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 81 | cc by PMID 26313004 · DOI · PMC4551475 |
| Gene expression in response to optical defocus of opposite signs reveals bidirectional mechanism of visually guided eye growth | 2018 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 72 | cc by PMID 30300342 · DOI · PMC6177118 |
| Hyperopia: a meta-analysis of prevalence and a review of associated factors among school-aged children | 2014 | Meta-analysis Design not recorded in structured metadata | 57 | cc by PMID 25539893 · DOI · PMC4391667 |
| Oculomotor dynamics in emmetropes, myopes, and hyperopes: A behavioral perspective | 2025 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 0 | cc by PMID 41428705 · DOI · PMC12721508 |
APLP2 Regulates Refractive Error and Myopia Development in Mice and Humans [1]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- Myopia is the most common vision disorder and the leading cause of visual impairment worldwide.
- Closing excerpt
- It also demonstrates an important role for APLP2 in refractive development in mice and humans, suggesting a high level of evolutionary conservation of the signaling pathways underlying refractive eye development.
- 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 (285 words)
Myopia is the most common vision disorder and the leading cause of visual impairment worldwide. However, gene variants identified to date explain less than 10% of the variance in refractive error, leaving the majority of heritability unexplained ("missing heritability"). Previously, we reported that expression of APLP2 was strongly associated with myopia in a primate model. Here, we found that low-frequency variants near the 5'-end of APLP2 were associated with refractive error in a prospective UK birth cohort (n = 3,819 children; top SNP rs188663068, p = 5.0 × 10-4) and a CREAM consortium panel (n = 45,756 adults; top SNP rs7127037, p = 6.6 × 10-3). These variants showed evidence of differential effect on childhood longitudinal refractive error trajectories depending on time spent reading (gene x time spent reading x age interaction, p = 4.0 × 10-3). Furthermore, Aplp2 knockout mice developed high degrees of hyperopia (+11.5 ± 2.2 D, p < 1.0 × 10-4) compared to both heterozygous (-0.8 ± 2.0 D, p < 1.0 × 10-4) and wild-type (+0.3 ± 2.2 D, p < 1.0 × 10-4) littermates and exhibited a dose-dependent reduction in susceptibility to environmentally induced myopia (F(2, 33) = 191.0, p < 1.0 × 10-4). This phenotype was associated with reduced contrast sensitivity (F(12, 120) = 3.6, p = 1.5 × 10-4) and changes in the electrophysiological properties of retinal amacrine cells, which expressed Aplp2. This work identifies APLP2 as one of the "missing" myopia genes, demonstrating the importance of a low-frequency gene variant in the development of human myopia. It also demonstrates an important role for APLP2 in refractive development in mice and humans, suggesting a high level of evolutionary conservation of the signaling pathways underlying refractive eye development.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 26313004 · DOI · PMC4551475
Gene expression in response to optical defocus of opposite signs reveals bidirectional mechanism of visually guided eye growth [2]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- Myopia (nearsightedness) is the most common eye disorder, which is rapidly becoming one of the leading causes of vision loss in several parts of the world because of a recent sharp increase in prevalence.
- Closing excerpt
- These findings identify retinal pathways involved in the development of myopia, as well as potential new strategies for its treatment.
- 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 (279 words)
Myopia (nearsightedness) is the most common eye disorder, which is rapidly becoming one of the leading causes of vision loss in several parts of the world because of a recent sharp increase in prevalence. Nearwork, which produces hyperopic optical defocus on the retina, has been implicated as one of the environmental risk factors causing myopia in humans. Experimental studies have shown that hyperopic defocus imposed by negative power lenses placed in front of the eye accelerates eye growth and causes myopia, whereas myopic defocus imposed by positive lenses slows eye growth and produces a compensatory hyperopic shift in refractive state. The balance between these two optical signals is thought to regulate refractive eye development; however, the ability of the retina to recognize the sign of optical defocus and the composition of molecular signaling pathways guiding emmetropization are the subjects of intense investigation and debate. We found that the retina can readily distinguish between imposed myopic and hyperopic defocus, and identified key signaling pathways underlying retinal response to the defocus of different signs. Comparison of retinal transcriptomes in common marmosets exposed to either myopic or hyperopic defocus for 10 days or 5 weeks revealed that the primate retina responds to defocus of different signs by activation or suppression of largely distinct pathways. We also found that 29 genes differentially expressed in the marmoset retina in response to imposed defocus are localized within human myopia quantitative trait loci (QTLs), suggesting functional overlap between genes differentially expressed in the marmoset retina upon exposure to optical defocus and genes causing myopia in humans. These findings identify retinal pathways involved in the development of myopia, as well as potential new strategies for its treatment.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 30300342 · DOI · PMC6177118
Hyperopia: a meta-analysis of prevalence and a review of associated factors among school-aged children [3]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- BackgroundStudies show great variability in the prevalence of hyperopia among children.
- Closing excerpt
- Furthermore, it is necessary to deepen the understanding about the interactions among hyperopic refractive error and accommodative and binocular functions as a way of identifying groups of hyperopic children at risk of developing visual, academic and even cognitive function sequelae.
- 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 (203 words)
BackgroundStudies show great variability in the prevalence of hyperopia among children. This study aimed to synthesize the existing knowledge about hyperopia prevalence and its associated factors in school children and to explore the reasons for this variability.MethodsThis systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines. Searching several international databases, the review included population- or school-based studies assessing hyperopia through cycloplegic autorefraction or cycloplegic retinoscopy. Meta-analysis of hyperopia prevalence was performed following MOOSE guidelines and using the random effects model.ResultsThe review included 40 cross-sectional studies. The prevalence of hyperopia ranged from 8.4% at age six, 2-3% from 9 to 14 years and approximately 1% at 15 years. With regard to associated factors, age has an inverse association with hyperopia. The frequency of hyperopia is higher among White children and those who live in rural areas. There is no consensus about the association between hyperopia and gender, family income and parental schooling.ConclusionFuture studies should use standardized methods to classify hyperopia and sufficient sample size when evaluating age-specific prevalence. Furthermore, it is necessary to deepen the understanding about the interactions among hyperopic refractive error and accommodative and binocular functions as a way of identifying groups of hyperopic children at risk of developing visual, academic and even cognitive function sequelae.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 25539893 · DOI · PMC4391667
Oculomotor dynamics in emmetropes, myopes, and hyperopes: A behavioral perspective [4]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- PurposeThe oculomotor system, which controls eye movements, is closely linked to visual processing.
- Closing excerpt
- These findings suggest distinct oculomotor behavior in myopia, potentially reflecting altered spatiotemporal processing during visual development.
- 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 (211 words)
PurposeThe oculomotor system, which controls eye movements, is closely linked to visual processing. While refractive errors are common, their influence on oculomotor behavior remains underexplored. This study compared oculomotor performance among emmetropic, myopic, and hyperopic individuals.MethodsIn this cross-sectional, single-visit study, 67 participants (33 myopes, 10 hyperopes, 24 emmetropes; mean age 25.9 ± 3.0 years) completed fixation and visually guided saccade tasks at a viewing distance of 57 cm. A centrally positioned black, disc-shaped target (0.50° in diameter) was displayed on the screen for 45 seconds, after which it shifted to a predetermined location to elicit visually guided saccades. Clinical measures were included in the correlation analysis to ensure the findings were clinically relevant and to examine relationships between research variables and patient outcomes. Eye movements were recorded using the EyeLink 1000Plus. Fixation stability was quantified using Bivariate Contour Ellipse Area (BCEA). Fixational saccade metrics, vergence stability, and saccadic behavior were analyzed. Axial length and corneal power were measured using a portable ultrasound scanner.ResultsFixation stability differed significantly across groups, with myopes exhibiting larger BCEA values compared to emmetropes (H[2] = 10.6, p ConclusionMyopes exhibited more unstable fixation, characterized by larger, faster, and more frequent fixational saccades. These findings suggest distinct oculomotor behavior in myopia, potentially reflecting altered spatiotemporal processing during visual development.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 41428705 · DOI · PMC12721508
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 Nature and nurture: the complex genetics of myopia and refractive error [5]
- Research article LASIK world literature review: quality of life and patient satisfaction [6]
- Research article Intraocular lens power calculation in eyes after corneal refractive surgery [7]
- Research article Emmetropisation and the aetiology of refractive errors [8]
- Research article Peripheral refraction and the development of refractive error: a review [9]
- Research article The role of photoreceptors in the control of refractive state [10]
References
- Tkatchenko AV, Tkatchenko TV, Guggenheim JA, Verhoeven VJ, Hysi PG, Wojciechowski R, et al.. APLP2 Regulates Refractive Error and Myopia Development in Mice and Humans. . 2015. PMID 26313004 · DOI · PMC4551475
- Tkatchenko TV, Troilo D, Benavente-Perez A, Tkatchenko AV. Gene expression in response to optical defocus of opposite signs reveals bidirectional mechanism of visually guided eye growth. . 2018. PMID 30300342 · DOI · PMC6177118
- Castagno VD, Fassa AG, Carret ML, Vilela MA, Meucci RD. Hyperopia: a meta-analysis of prevalence and a review of associated factors among school-aged children. . 2014. PMID 25539893 · DOI · PMC4391667
- Upadhyaya S. Oculomotor dynamics in emmetropes, myopes, and hyperopes: A behavioral perspective. . 2025. PMID 41428705 · DOI · PMC12721508
- Wojciechowski R. Nature and nurture: the complex genetics of myopia and refractive error. Clin Genet. 2011. PMID 21155761 · DOI · PMC3058260
- Solomon KD, Fernández de Castro LE, Sandoval HP, Biber JM, Groat B, Neff KD, et al.. LASIK world literature review: quality of life and patient satisfaction. Ophthalmology. 2009. PMID 19344821 · DOI
- Seitz B, Langenbucher A. Intraocular lens power calculation in eyes after corneal refractive surgery. J Refract Surg. 2000. PMID 10832985 · DOI
- Flitcroft DI. Emmetropisation and the aetiology of refractive errors. Eye (Lond). 2014. PMID 24406411 · DOI · PMC3930278
- Charman WN, Radhakrishnan H. Peripheral refraction and the development of refractive error: a review. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2010. PMID 20629956 · DOI
- Crewther DP. The role of photoreceptors in the control of refractive state. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2000. PMID 10785617 · 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.