Due to the myopia prevalence increase worldwide, this study aims to establish the most relevant risk factors associated with its development and progression. A review search was carried out using PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases to identify the main myopia risk factors. The inclusion criteria for the articles were those related to the topic, carried out in subjects from 5 to 30 years, published between January 2000 and May 2023, in English, and with the full text available. Myopia etiology has proven to be associated with both genetic and environmental factors as well as with gene–environment interaction. The risk of developing myopia increases in children with myopic parents (one parent ×2 times, two parents ×5 times). Regarding environmental factors, education is the main risk factor correlated with myopia prevalence increase. Further, several studies found that shorter distance (30 min) for near work increase the risk of myopia. Meanwhile, increased outdoor activity (>40 min/day) has been shown to be a key factor in reducing myopia incidence. In conclusion, the interventional strategy suggested so far to reduce myopia incidence is an increase in time outdoors and a reduction in the time spent performing near-work tasks.

Background: We aim to assess if refractive error or age may influence the repeatability of measurements using a swept-source biometer. Methods: A total of 61 subjects were evaluated with IOLMaster 700 acquiring measurements of axial length (AL), central corneal thickness (CCT), white-to-white distance (WTW), anterior aqueous depth (AQD), lens thickness (LT), and keratometry (K) readings. Repeatability was evaluated classifying the sample according to the refractive state and age by the calculation of the within-subject standard deviation (S_w), coefficient of repeatability, and intraclass correlation coefficient. Results: Very similar S_w was acquired among groups for AL, CCT, and WTW. Differences found for AQD, LT, keratometry and astigmatism among refractive and age groups were not clinically significant. Refractive groups obtained a S_w for AQD between 0.016 and 0.026, while for LT was between 0.023 and 0.029 mm. Besides, S_w showed values from 0.014 to 0.029 mm for keratometry. Age groups obtained a S_w of 0.025 and 0.016 mm for AQD, and 0.029 and 0.018 mm for LT, respectively. S_w was 0.019 vs 0.018 mm for K1, 0.014 vs 0.031 mm for K2. Conclusions: IOLMaster 700 showed good repeatability for biometric and keratometric parameters in eyes classified according to their refractive error or age.

Purpose: To assess the links between discomfort glare sensitivity and physiological factors such as eye biometry, refraction, skin phototype, age, and gender among a large sample of healthy human subjects. Methods: A total of 489 participants who were 20 to 70 years old (241 men, 248 women) underwent discomfort glare threshold measurements via the LUMIZ 100. Eye biometry and optical quality were measured using a Zeiss IOLMaster 700 biometer and i.Profiler aberrometer. Iris color, skin tone, age, gender, eyeglasses use, chronotype, fatigue level, self-evaluation of light sensitivity, and time spent outdoors were determined. Statistical analysis was carried out using nonparametric Mann–Whitney and Kruskal–Wallis tests for categorical data and correlation coefficients for numerical data. Results: The female subgroup had lower discomfort thresholds than the males (P < 0.001). There was no effect of age group, ametropia, eye biometry, iris color, skin tones, chronotype, or fatigue level on discomfort thresholds. Discomfort thresholds were related to self-assessment of light sensitivity, sunglasses ownership, and frequency of use (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Exploration of easily measurable physiological parameters and questionnaire failed to provide reliable indicators of individual light sensitivity to discomfort glare. Translational Relevance: Light sensitivity is highly subjective and variable across the population. Patients frequently complain about light bothering their daily lives. Accessible physiological factors and questionnaires are unable to predict discomfort levels due to glare. The LUMIZ 100 provides a reliable, rapid, and safe way to determine light discomfort thresholds in order to better manage light sensitivity in clinical care.

Background: Current advances in ocular surgery require the evaluation of differences in automated white-to-white (WTW) measurements between systems. We aim to analyze three different commonly used devices in clinical practice: the IOLMaster 700, the Atlas 9000, and the Sirius. Methods: Ninety right eyes of ninety healthy subjects were included. Measurements of WTW distances were taken with each device for all subjects in the same session and by the same observer. Statistical comparison was carried out by means of the rANOVA procedure and the Bonferroni post-hoc test. In addition, the Bland-Altman analysis was applied in order to perform pairwise comparisons. Results: Average WTW values obtained by the IOLMaster 700, the Atlas 9000, and the Sirius devices were 12.18 ± 0.40-mm, 12.32 ± 0.37-mm and 11.90 ± 0.37-mm, respectively. There were statistically significant differences in all pairwise comparisons. Mean differences revealed that the Atlas 9000 provided the highest WTW values, followed by the IOLMaster 700 values and finally by the Sirius results, which had the lowest values. The limits of agreement obtained in all pairwise comparisons were wide, with a range between 0.64 and 0.75 mm. Conclusions: According to our results, these three devices should not be used interchangeably for WTW diameter measurements during the clinical practice.