Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Scientific Reports logoLink to Scientific Reports
. 2023 Jan 31;13:1801. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-28750-6

Prevalence of computer vision syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Etsay Woldu Anbesu 1,✉, Asamene Kelelom Lema 2
PMCID: PMC9888747  PMID: 36720986

Abstract

Although computer vision syndromes are becoming a major public health concern, less emphasis is given to them, particularly in developing countries. There are primary studies on different continents; however, there are inconsistent findings in prevalence among the primary studies. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to estimate the pooled prevalence of computer vision syndrome. In this study, the review was developed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Online electronic databases, including PubMed/Medline, CINAHL, and Google Scholar, were used to retrieve published and unpublished studies. The study was conducted from December 1 to April 9/2022. Study selection, quality assessment, and data extraction were performed independently by two authors. Quality assessment of the studies was performed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Meta-Analysis of Statistics Assessment and Review Instrument tool. Heterogeneity was assessed using the statistical test I2. STATA 14 software was used for statistical analysis. A total of 7,35 studies were retrieved, and 45 studies were included in the final meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of computer vision syndrome was 66% (95% CI: 59, 74). Subgroup analysis based on country was highest in Pakistan (97%, 95% CI: 96, 98) and lowest in Japan (12%, 95% CI: 9, 15). Subgroup analysis based on country showed that studies in Saudi Arabia (I2 = 99.41%, p value < 0.001), Ethiopia (I2 = 72.6%, p value < 0.001), and India (I2 = 98.04%, p value < 0.001) had significant heterogeneity. In the sensitivity analysis, no single study unduly influenced the overall effect estimate. Nearly two in three participants had computer vision syndrome. Thus, preventive practice strategic activities for computer vision syndrome are important interventions.

Subject terms: Health care, Medical research

Introduction

Computer vision syndrome (CVS) is defined as “a complex of eye and vision problems related to near work experienced during computer use”1. Visual fatigue (VF) and digital eye strain (DES) terms are also used for CVS, reflecting the different digital devices related to potential health problems2. Symptoms related to CVS can be classified as visual, ocular, and extraocular symptoms3. Visual symptoms include blurred vision, visual fatigue or discomfort, and diplopia4–7. Ocular symptoms include dry eye disease, redness, eye strain, and irritation1,8,9. Extraocular symptoms include headache and shoulder, neck, and back pain3,4,10–14.

Individuals spend more time on electronic devices such as computers, laptops, smartphones, tablets, and e-readers, which contribute to CVS15. Children are also affected in CVS, as they spend many hours using electronic devices for schoolwork, playing video games, and sending and receiving text messages15. However, the use of these devices even for 3 h/day can lead to the development of CVS3.

The massive growth of digital devices has become an integral part of daily life, and millions of individuals of all ages are at risk of CVS16–18. In developed nations, engagement with digital devices has increased substantially in recent years across all age groups19–22. Moreover, digital device use has increased in developing countries, resulting in a high burden of CVS due to low accessibility, low utilization of personal protective equipment, and limited break time while using electronic devices. CVS is a major public health problem leading to occupational hazard, an increased error rate, impaired visual abilities, reduced productivity, and low job satisfaction23,24.

A review of the literature showed that factors associated with CVS can be classified as personal factors, which include poor sitting position, inappropriate eye-to-screen distance, insufficient working procedures, improper viewing angle and distances, age, medical diseases, and long duration of computer usage. The environment and computer factors such as improper workstations, poor lighting, contrast, and resolution rooms, slow refresh rate, glare of the display, excessive screen brightness, and imbalance of light between the computer screen and surrounding working room5,10,25–28.

Modern digital technology markedly influences the daily activities and lifestyles of people4,7. CVS has an effect on reduced productivity and visual and musculoskeletal impairment and a negative impact on cadiac rhythms and sleep patterns4,7,13,29,30. Although CVS is becoming a major public health problem, less emphasis is given, particularly in developing countries. There are primary studies on different continents; however, there are inconsistent findings in prevalence among the primary studies. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to estimate the pooled prevalence of computer vision syndrome.

Methods

Protocol and registration

This systematic review and meta-analysis was registered on PROSPERO with registration number CRD42022325167. Available at: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#myprospero.

Search strategies

The systematic review was developed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines31, and the review procedure was reported using the PRISMA-P 2009 checklist32 (supplementary file 1). Published and unpublished studies were searched in databases such as Medline/PubMed, CINAHL, and Google Scholar from December 1 to April 9/2022. MeSH terms and entry terms were used to search studies from databases, and modifications were made based on the type of database (supplementary file 2).

Eligibility criteria

Inclusion criteria

  • The following criteria were considered to include studies:

Study area.

  • Anywhere

Study scope.

  • Studies that report the prevalence of CVS and its associated factors

  • Studies that report the prevalence of CVS

  • “Both community- and facility-based studies”

  • Quantitative results, if the study reported both qualitative and quantitative results

Study design.

  • Observational study designs, including cross-sectional and cohort study designs

Language.

  • English

Population.

  • All population groups

Publication year.

  • No restriction

Exclusion criteria

Studies were excluded if:

  • Other than English

  • Studies that did not report specific outcomes (prevalence) of CVS

  • No full-text article following email contact to the corresponding authors

  • Qualitative studies

  • Letters, conference abstracts, case reports, and reviews,

CoCoPop/PEO

Condition: computer vision syndrome.

Context: worldwide.

Population: All population groups.

Outcome/context: The primary outcome of the study was the pooled prevalence of CVS. The prevalence of CVS was considered when the studies reported the overall prevalence of CVS or either of CVS syndromes (blurred vision, eye strain/fatigue, discomfort, diplopia, dry eye disease, redness, irritation, headache, shoulder, neck, and back pain) in the primary studies.

Study selection

Endnote reference manager software33 was used to organize and remove duplicates, irrelevant titles, and abstracts. Duplicate studies were removed. An assessment of studies using the title and abstract was performed, and irrelevant titles and abstracts were removed. Study selection was performed independently by two reviewers (EW and AK). The selection procedures of the studies were presented using a PRISMA diagram.

Quality assessment

A full-text review of studies was performed before the inclusion of studies in the final meta-analysis using “The Joanna Briggs Institute Meta-Analysis of Statistics Assessment and Review Instrument (JBI-MAStARI)”34 quality appraisal tool. The components of quality assessment include study setting, outcome and explanatory variable measurements, clear inclusion criteria, measurement criteria used, participants’ description, and valid statistical analysis. Independent quality assessment of the studies was reviewed by EW and AK, and studies with a quality score of 50% and above were included in the final systematic review and meta-analysis. Disagreement during quality assessment among reviewers was resolved with discussion. In addition, cross-referencing of the included articles was performed.

Data extraction

Independent data extraction was performed by the authors (EW and AK) using a pilot-tested data extraction Microsoft Office Excel sheet. The data extraction sheet elements included publication year, authors’ names, study design, country, sample size, response rate, prevalence and study subjects. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion between the authors (EW and AK). Contact with the corresponding authors of the studies was made for incomplete data, and the study was excluded if there was no response.

Data analysis

The extracted Excel data were imported into STATA version 14 for analysis. A narrative description and summary characteristics of the included studies were reported in tables and graphs. A random-effects model meta-analysis35 was used to estimate the overall effect size, and the results were presented using a forest plot.

The heterogeneity of studies was assessed by the I2 statistic36. I2 statistics of 25, 50 and 75% showed low, moderate and high heterogeneity, respectively, with p < 0.05. Publication bias was assessed using visual observation of the funnel plot37 and Egger’s test at p < 0.0538. To identify the sources of heterogeneity among the studies, subgroup analysis and meta-regression39 were performed based on country and sample size. Moreover, sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the effect of the study on the overall effect size.

Results

A total of 735 articles were retrieved using electronic database searches: PubMed, Google Scholar, and CINHAL. Seventy-seven articles were excluded due to duplication, and 559 articles were excluded because they were not related to the title and abstract. Ninety-nine full-text articles were assessed for quality eligibility, and 57 articles were excluded based on the quality appraisal tool because they were irrelevant, had no full text available, or were duplicates. Three articles were identified through a cross-reference search of the included studies. Finally, 45 articles were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis (Fig. 1).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

PRISMA flow diagram studies screening, and selection on computer vision syndrome, 2022.

Characteristics of the included studies

A total of 45 cross-sectional studies with 17,526 sample sizes were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis: four studies in Saudi Arabia40–43, two studies in Nigeria44,45, three studies in Ghana46–48, four studies in Pakistan49–52, three studies in Spain53–55, seven studies in Ethiopia56–62, one study in Jordan63, two studies in China64,65, one study in Iran66, three studies in Egypt67–69, eight studies in India18,70–76, one study in Nepal77, one study in Sri Lanka29, two studies in Brazil78,79, one study in Beirut80, one study in Japan81, and one study in Thailand82. The sample size ranged from 74 in China64 to 2210 in Sri Lanka29 (Table 1).

Table 1.

Characteristics of included studies in the meta-analysis of computer vision syndrome, 2022.

Author/s/year (reference) Country Study design Sample size Response rate (%) Prevalence (%) Study subjects
Abudawood GA, et al. 41 Saudi Arabia Cross sectional 587 100 95.1 Students
Agbonlahor O. et al.44 Nigeria Cross sectional 215 84 65.1 Government employ
Akowuah PK, et al.83 Ghana Cross sectional 362 92.5 64.4 Students
Al Dandan O, et al.42 Saudi Arabia Cross sectional 198 75.3 50.5 Radiologists
Al Subaie M, et al.43 Saudi Arabia Cross sectional 416 100 43.5 Population ≥ 15 years
Arshad S, et al.84 Pakistan Cross sectional 320 100 58.1 Students
Artime‐Ríos E, et al.2021 53 Spain Cross sectional 622 - 56.7 Health workers
Boadi-Kusi SB, et al.48 Ghana Cross sectional 139 86.9 71.2 Bank workers
Boadi-Kusi SB, et al.47 Ghana Cross sectional 200 65 51.5 University staff
Cantó‐Sancho N, et al.54 Spain Cross sectional 244 100 76.6 Students
Derbew H, et al.56 Ethiopia Cross sectional 351 98 74.6 Bank workers
Dessie A, et al.57 Ethiopia Cross sectional 607 93.1 69.5 Government employ
Gammoh Y. et al.63 Jordan Cross sectional 382 92 94.5 Students
Gondol BN, et al.58 Ethiopia Cross sectional 272 100 81.3 Government employ
Han CC, et al.65 China Cross sectional 1469 97.9 57.04 Students
Hashemi H, et al.66 Iran Cross sectional 1040 97.2 49.4 Students
Kamal NN, et al.67 Egypt Cross sectional 218 96.3 84.8 Bank workers
Lakachew Assefa N. et al.59 Ethiopia Cross sectional 304 98.2 73.03 Bank workers
Lemma MG. et al.60 Ethiopia Cross sectional 455 93 68.8 Secretaries
Lemma MT,et al.61 Ethiopia Cross sectional 217 96.8 75.6 Secretaries
Logaraj M, et al.70 India Cross sectional 215 100 81.8 Students
Mansoori N, et al.50 Pakistan Cross sectional 150 100 28 students
Mohan A, et al.71 India Cross sectional 217 83.14 50.2 Children
NAGWA E, et al.68 Egypt Cross sectional 260 100 75 Students
Noreen K, et al.52 Pakistan Cross sectional 326 95.04 98.7 Students
Noreen K, et al.51 Pakistan Cross sectional 198 86.5 67.2 Students
Nwankwo B, et al.45 Nigeria Cross sectional 153 100 54.2 Students
Poudel S, et al.77 Nepal Cross sectional 263 94.9 82.5 IT office workers
Rafeeq U, et al.72 India Cross sectional 120 100 69.2  ≥ 12 years old population
Ranasinghe P, et al.85 Serilanka Cross sectional 2210 88.4 67.4 Computer office workers
Ranganatha SC, et al.73 India Cross sectional 150 100 86.7 Computer sciences students
Rathore D. , et al.74 India Cross sectional 150 100 75.3 Computer users
Sa EC, et al.78 Brazil Cross sectional 476 89.6 54.6 Call center
Sánchez-Brau M, et al.55 Spain Cross sectional 109 95.6 74.3 Visual display workers
Sawaya RI, et al.80 Beirut Cross sectional 457 73.5 67.8 Students
Singh H, et al.18 India Cross sectional 192 96 51.6 Students
Tiwari RR, et al.75 India Cross sectional 432 100 32.2 Children
Uchino M, et el.81 Japan Cross sectional 561 83.5 11.6 Visual display terminal users
Verma S, et al.76 India Cross sectional 100 100 74 Computer operators
Vilela MA, et al.79 Brazil Cross sectional 964 100 24.7 School children
Wang L, et al.64 China Cross sectional 74 80.12 74.3 Students
Wangsan K, et al.82 Thailand Cross sectional 527 100 81.02 Students
Zalat MM, et al.40 Saudi Arabia Cross sectional 80 100 81.3 Visual display workers
Zayed HA, et al.69 Egypt Cross sectional 108 98.18 82.4 IT professionals
Zenbaba D, et al.62 Ethiopia Cross sectional 416 98.6 70.43 Students
Open in a new tab

Pooled prevalence of computer vision syndrome

The pooled prevalence of computer vision syndrome was 66% (95% CI: 59, 74). The lowest proportion included study was in Japan, 12% (95% CI: 9, 15)81, and the highest was in Pakistan, 99% (95% CI: 97, 100) 52. The I2 test showed that there was heterogeneity among the included studies (I2 = 99.42%, p value < 0.001) (Fig. 2).

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Forest plot showing the pooled prevalence of computer vision syndrome, 2022.

Subgroup analysis by country

Subgroup analysis was performed based on country, and the prevalence of computer vision syndrome was highest in Pakistan (97%, 95% CI: 96, 98) and lowest in Japan (12%, 95% CI: 9, 15). The studies that showed significant heterogeneity were studies in Saudi Arabia (I2 = 99.41%, p value < 0.001), Ethiopia (I2 = 72.6%, p value < 0.001), Egypt (I2 = 80.06%, p value < 0.001), and India (I2 = 98.04%, p value < 0.001) (Table 2).

Table 2.

Subgroup analysis by country on computer vision syndrome, 2022.

Sub group Number of included studies Prevalence (95% CI) Heterogeneity statistics
p value I2(%)
By country Saudi Arabia 4 68(37, 98) p < 0.001 99.41
Nigeria 2 61(56, 66) p < 0.001 0.00
Ghana 3 62(52, 73) p < 0.001 0.00
Pakistan 2 62(58, 66) p < 0.001 0.00
Spain 3 69(55, 83) p < 0.001 0.00
Ethiopia 7 73(70, 76) p < 0.001 72.6
Jordan 1 95(92, 96) – 0.00
China 2 58(56, 61) p < 0.001 0.00
Iran 1 49(46, 52) – 0.00
Egypt 5 81(74, 87) p < 0.001 80.06
India 8 65(49, 81) p < 0.001 98.04
Pakistan 2 97(96, 98) p < 0.001 0.00
Nepal 1 83(77, 87) – 0.00
Seri Lanka 1 67(65, 69) – 0.00
Brazil 2 33(30, 35) p < 0.001 0.00
Beirut 1 68(63, 72) – 0.00
Thailand 1 81(77,84) – 0.00
South Korea 1 66(63, 69) – 0.00
Italy 1 15(11, 21) – 0.00
Japan 1 12(9, 15) – 0.00
Open in a new tab

Meta regression

Meta-regression was performed to identify the source of heterogeneity across the studies by country and sample size. Meta-regression indicated that heterogeneity was not associated with country or sample size (p value > 0.05) (Supplementary file 3 Table S1).

Publication biases

Publication bias was checked using dot plots, and visual inspection suggested asymmetry (Supplementary file 4: Figure S1).Moreover, publication bias was not shown by Egger’s test (p = 0.21) (Supplementary file 5 Table S2).

Sensitivity analysis

The sensitivity analysis was performed, and no single study unduly influenced the overall effect estimate of CVS (Supplementary file 6 Table S3).

Discussion

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the pooled prevalence of computer vision syndrome. Although there are primary studies conducted on CVS, there are inconsistent findings on prevalence results. Moreover, there are no systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the pooled prevalence of computer vision syndrome. Therefore, findings from this systematic review and meta-analysis will help policy-makers design appropriate strategies to reduce computer vision syndrome-related public health concerns.

The pooled prevalence of computer vision syndrome was 66% (95% CI: 59, 73). The pooled prevalence was in line with the study done in India COVID-19 pre lockdown, 64.3%86. However, the pooled prevalence was lower than that in studies performed in India during the COVID-19 lockdown, 87.3%86, Europe, 90%87, and Ethiopia, 73.21%88. The difference might be due to differences in study period, study setting, socioeconomic differences, awareness and behavioral change in the prevention of computer vision syndrome. Moreover, the precision of the diagnostic instruments used to record the prevalence of CVS may be the cause of a wide range of variations. Whether through direct or online surveys, the majority of papers used purely subjective questions. As most surveys rely solely on the existence of one or more CVS complaints to diagnose CVS without connecting these complaints to the time of screen use and the long-term frequency of these complaints for months, studies may exaggerate the true prevalence of CVS11,89. Additionally, the disparity may be caused by how people use screens, particularly smartphones, or screen abuse, such as poor lighting, uncomfortable seating positions, close eye-screen distance, improper visualization gaze, uncorrected refractive errors, prolonged continuous screen hours, a lack of breaks, viewing screens in the dark, and poor screen design.

This study has the following limitations: articles published only in English were included, and it was difficult to determine the cause-effect relationship, as all the studies were cross-sectional designs. Additional database searches, such as Science Direct, Web of Science, ProQuest, Scopus, EMBASE, etc., we’re not performed due to the lack of free access and we recommend funding to expand database searches. Moreover, this study was reported from 20 countries, which might lack representativeness.

Conclusion

Nearly two in three participants had computer vision syndrome. Thus, preventive practice strategic activities for computer vision syndrome are important interventions.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Information. (237.9KB, docx)

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge Samara University for network and HINARY database website access.

Author contributions

Conceptualization: A.K.L., Investigation: E.W.A., Methodology: A.K.L., E.W.A., Writing—original draft: E.W.A., Writing—review & editing: A.K.L., E.W.A.

Data availability

All data are included in this manuscript and its supplementary information files.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Footnotes

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1038/s41598-023-28750-6.

References

  • 1.Association AO. The Effects of Computer Use on Eye Health and Vision. American Optometric Association; 1997. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Rosenfield M. Computer vision syndrome (aka digital eye strain) Optometry in practice. 2016;17(1):1–10. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Association, AO, Guide to the clinical aspects of computer vision syndrome. St. Louis: American Optometric Association, 1995. 1.
  • 4.Ahmed SF, McDermott KC, et al. Visual function, digital behavior and the vision performance index. Clin. Ophthalmol. 2018;12:2553. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S187131. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Klamm J, Tarnow KG. Computer vision syndrome: A review of literature. Medsurg Nurs. 2015;24(2):89. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Munshi S, Varghese A, et al. Computer vision syndrome—A common cause of unexplained visual symptoms in the modern era. Int. J. Clin. Pract. 2017;71(7):e12962. doi: 10.1111/ijcp.12962. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Vaz FT, Henriques SP, et al. Digital asthenopia: Portuguese group of ergophthalmology survey. Acta Med. Port. 2019;32(4):260–265. doi: 10.20344/amp.10942. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Akkaya S, Atakan T, et al. Effects of long-term computer use on eye dryness. North. Clin. Istanb. 2018;5(4):319. doi: 10.14744/nci.2017.54036. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Billones, R. K. C., Bedruz R. A. R., et al. Digital eye strain and fatigue recognition using electrooculogram signals and ultrasonic distance measurements. In 2018 IEEE 10th International conference on humanoid, nanotechnology, information technology, communication and control, environment and management (HNICEM). 2018. IEEE.
  • 10.Chawla A, Lim TC, et al. Computer vision syndrome: Darkness under the shadow of light. Can. Assoc. Radiol. J. 2019;70(1):5–9. doi: 10.1016/j.carj.2018.10.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Iqbal M, Elzembely H, et al. Computer vision syndrome prevalence and ocular sequelae among medical students a university-wide study on a marginalized visual security issue. Open Ophthalmol. J. 2021;15(1):156–170. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Leung TW, Li RW-h, et al. Blue-light filtering spectacle lenses: Optical and clinical performances. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(1):0169114. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0169114. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Stringham JM, Stringham NT, et al. Macular carotenoid supplementation improves visual performance, sleep quality, and adverse physical symptoms in those with high screen time exposure. Foods. 2017;6(7):47. doi: 10.3390/foods6070047. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Touitou Y, Touitou D, et al. Disruption of adolescents’ circadian clock: The vicious circle of media use, exposure to light at night, sleep loss and risk behaviors. J. Physiol.-Paris. 2016;110(4):467–479. doi: 10.1016/j.jphysparis.2017.05.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Heiting, G, Wan, L, Computer vision syndrome and computer glasses: FAQ. All About Vision. 2017.
  • 16.LAKACHEW, N, 2015 Prevalence and Associated Factors of Computer Vision Syndrome among Bank Workers in Gondar City, Northwest Ethiopia, 2015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 17.Mani, K, Ergonomics education for office computer workers: An evidence-based strategy. Anatomy, Posture, Prevalence, Pain, Treatment and Interventions of Musculoskeletal Disorders, 2018.
  • 18.Singh H, Tigga MJ, et al. Prevention of ocular morbidity among medical students by prevalence assessment of asthenopia and its risk factors. J. Evid. Based Med. Healthcare. 2016;3(15):532–536. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Council, V, Eyes overexposed: The digital device dilemma. 2016.
  • 20.Mastrota KM. As seen on TV: Doing harm, not help, to the ocular surface. Optometry Times. 2019;11(9):30–32. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Palaiologou I. Children under five and digital technologies: Implications for early years pedagogy. Eur. Early Child. Educ. Res. J. 2016;24(1):5–24. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Tadesse S, Kelaye T, et al. Utilization of personal protective equipment and associated factors among textile factory workers at Hawassa Town, Southern Ethiopia. J. Occup. Med. Toxicol. 2016;11(1):1–6. doi: 10.1186/s12995-016-0096-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Charpe NA, Kaushik V. Computer vision syndrome (CVS): Recognition and control in software professionals. J. Hum. Ecol. 2009;28(1):67–69. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Wimalasundera, S, Computer vision syndrome. Galle Med. J., 2009. 11(1).
  • 25.Agarwal S, Goel D, et al. Evaluation of the factors which contribute to the ocular complaints in computer users. J. Clin. Diagnostic Res.: JCDR. 2013;7(2):331. doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2013/5150.2760. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Gowrisankaran S, Sheedy JE. Computer vision syndrome: A review. Work. 2015;52(2):303–314. doi: 10.3233/WOR-152162. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Long J, Cheung R, et al. Viewing distance and eyestrain symptoms with prolonged viewing of smartphones. Clin. Exp. Optom. 2017;100(2):133–137. doi: 10.1111/cxo.12453. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Millodot M. Dictionary of Optometry and Visual Science E-Book. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Ranasinghe P, Wathurapatha W, et al. Computer vision syndrome among computer office workers in a developing country: An evaluation of prevalence and risk factors. BMC. Res. Notes. 2016;9(1):1–9. doi: 10.1186/s13104-016-1962-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Shantakumari N, Eldeeb R, et al. Computer use and vision. related problems among university students in Ajman, United Arab Emirate. Ann. Med. Health Sci. Res. 2014;4(2):258–263. doi: 10.4103/2141-9248.129058. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Page MJ, McKenzie JE, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int. J. Surg. 2021;88:105906. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Moher D, Liberati A, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 2009;151(4):264–269. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Agrawal A, Rasouli M. EndNote 1-2-3 Easy! Springer; 2019. Reference Management Software Programs; pp. 7–18. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Munn Z, Tufanaru C, et al. JBI's systematic reviews: Data extraction and synthesis. AJN Am. J. Nursing. 2014;114(7):49–54. doi: 10.1097/01.NAJ.0000451683.66447.89. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Berkey CS, Hoaglin DC, et al. A random-effects regression model for meta-analysis. Stat. Med. 1995;14(4):395–411. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780140406. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat. Med. 2002;21(11):1539–1558. doi: 10.1002/sim.1186. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Pustejovsky JE, Rodgers MA. Testing for funnel plot asymmetry of standardized mean differences. Res. Synth. Methods. 2019;10(1):57–71. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1332. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.van Enst WA, Ochodo E, et al. Investigation of publication bias in meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy: A meta-epidemiological study. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2014;14(1):1–11. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-70. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Spineli LM, Pandis N. Problems and pitfalls in subgroup analysis and meta-regression. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2020;158(6):901–904. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2020.09.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Zalat MM, Amer SM, et al. Computer vision syndrome, visual ergonomics and amelioration among staff members in a Saudi medical college. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2021;28:1–9. doi: 10.1080/10803548.2021.1877928. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Abudawood GA, Ashi HM, et al. Computer vision syndrome among undergraduate medical students in King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. J Ophthalmol. 2020 doi: 10.1155/2020/2789376. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Al Dandan O, Hassan A, et al. Digital Eye strain among radiologists: A survey-based cross-sectional study. Acad. Radiol. 2021;28(8):1142–1148. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2020.05.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Al Subaie M, Al-Dossari S, et al. Computer vision syndrome among mobile phone users in Al-Ahsa, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Al-Basar Int. J. Ophthalmol. 2017;4(4):99. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Agbonlahor O. Prevalence and knowledge of computer vision syndrome (CVS) among the working class adults in FCT Nigeria. J. Nigerian Optom. Assoc. 2019;21(1):49–60. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Nwankwo, B, Mumueh K, et al., Computer Vision Syndrome: Prevalence and Associated Risk Factors among Undergraduates in a Tertiary Institution in North western Nigeria. 2021.
  • 46.Akowuah, PK, Nti AN, et al., Digital Device Use, Computer Vision Syndrome, and Sleep Quality among an African Undergraduate Population. Advances in Public Health, 2021. 2021.
  • 47.Boadi-Kusi, SB, Abu SL, et al., Association between poor ergophthalmologic practices and computer vision syndrome among university administrative staff in Ghana. J. Environ. Public Health 2020. 2020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 48.Boadi-Kusi, SB, Adueming PO-W, et al., Computer vision syndrome and its associated ergonomic factors among bank workers. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 2021: p. 1–8. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 49.Arshad S, Qureshi MF, et al. Computer vision syndrome: Prevalence and predictors among students. Ann. Psychophysiol. 2019;6(1):15–22. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Mansoori N, Qamar N, et al. Dry eye syndrome and associated risk factors among computer users in Karachi, Pakistan. ANNALS OF ABBASI SHAHEED HOSPITAL AND KARACHI MEDICAL & DENTAL COLLEGE. 2017;22(3):165–170. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Noreen, K., Batool Z., et al., Prevalence of computer vision syndrome and its associated risk factors among under graduate medical students of urban karachi. Pakistan J. Ophthalmol., 2016. 32(3).
  • 52.Noreen, K., Ali K., et al., Computer vision syndrome (CVS) and its associated risk factors among undergraduate medical students in midst of COVID-19. Pakistan J. Ophthalmol., 2021. 37(1).
  • 53.Artime-Ríos E, Suárez-Sánchez A, et al. Computer vision syndrome in healthcare workers using video display terminals: An exploration of the risk factors. J. Adv. Nurs. 2022 doi: 10.1111/jan.15140. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Cantó-Sancho N, Sánchez-Brau M, et al. Computer vision syndrome prevalence according to individual and video display terminal exposure characteristics in Spanish university students. Int. J. Clin. Pract. 2021;75(3):e13681. doi: 10.1111/ijcp.13681. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Sánchez-Brau M, Domenech-Amigot B, et al. Prevalence of computer vision syndrome and its relationship with ergonomic and individual factors in presbyopic VDT workers using progressive addition lenses. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2020;17(3):1003. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17031003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Derbew H, Nega A, et al. Assessment of computer vision syndrome and personal risk factors among employees of commercial bank of Ethiopia in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. J. Environ. Public Health. 2021 doi: 10.1155/2021/6636907. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Dessie A, Adane F, et al. Computer vision syndrome and associated factors among computer users in Debre Tabor Town Northwest Ethiopia. J. Environ. Public Health. 2018 doi: 10.1155/2018/4107590. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Gondol BN, Areba AS, et al. Prevalence of visual and posture related symptoms of computer vision syndrome among computer user workers of Ethiopian roads authority. J. Environ. Occup. Health. 2020;10(3):73–78. [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Assefa NL. 2015 Prevalence and associated factors of computer vision syndrome among bank workers in Gondar City, northwest Ethiopia. Clin. Optom. 2017;9:67. doi: 10.2147/OPTO.S126366. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Lemma MG. Computer vision syndrome and associated factors among secretaries working in ministry offices in Addis Ababa Ethiopia. Clin. Optom. 2020;12:213. doi: 10.2147/OPTO.S284934. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Lemma MT, Sadik MI, et al. Computer vision syndrome and its predictors among secretary employees working in Jimma University, Southwest Ethiopia. J. Environ. Occup. Health. 2021;11(2):27–36. [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Zenbaba D, Sahiledengle B, et al. Prevalence of computer vision syndrome and associated factors among instructors in Ethiopian Universities: A web-based cross-sectional study. Sci. World J. 2021 doi: 10.1155/2021/3384332. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Gammoh Y. Digital eye strain and its risk factors among a university student population in jordan: A cross-sectional study. Cureus. 2021;13(2):e13575. doi: 10.7759/cureus.13575. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Wang L, Wei X, et al. Computer vision syndrome during SARS-CoV-2 outbreak in university students: A comparison between online courses and classroom lectures. Front. Public Health. 2021;9:696036. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.696036. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Han C-C, Liu R, et al. Prevalence of asthenopia and its risk factors in Chinese college students. Int. J. Ophthalmol. 2013;6(5):718. doi: 10.3980/j.issn.2222-3959.2013.05.31. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Hashemi, H., Khabazkhoob M., et al., The prevalence of asthenopia and its determinants among schoolchildren. J. Compr. Ped., 2017. 8(1).
  • 67.Kamal, N.N., Abd El-Mageed A.S., Determinants of computer vision syndrome among bank employees in Minia City, Egypt. Egyptian J. Community Med., 2018. 36(4).
  • 68.Nagwa E, Marwa MA, et al. Computer vision syndrome and associated factors among students of Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University. Med. J. Cairo Univ. 2019;87:4877–4881. [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Zayed HAM, Saied SM, et al. Digital eye strain: Prevalence and associated factors among information technology professionals Egypt. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021;28(20):25187–25195. doi: 10.1007/s11356-021-12454-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Logaraj M, Madhupriya V, et al. Computer vision syndrome and associated factors among medical and engineering students in Chennai. Ann. Med. Health Sci. Res. 2014;4(2):179–185. doi: 10.4103/2141-9248.129028. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Mohan A, Sen P, et al. Prevalence and risk factor assessment of digital eye strain among children using online e-learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: Digital eye strain among kids (DESK study-1) Indian J. Ophthalmol. 2021;69(1):140. doi: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_2535_20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Rafeeq U, Omear M, et al. Computer vision syndrome among individuals using visual display terminals for more than two hours. Delta J. Ophthalmol. 2020;21(3):139. [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Ranganatha S, Jailkhani S. Prevalence and associated risk factors of computer vision syndrome among the computer science students of an engineering college of Bengaluru-a cross-sectional study. Galore Int. J. Health Sci. Res. 2019;4(3):10–15. [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Rathore D. A cross sectional study to assess prevalence of computer vision syndrome and vision related problems in computer users. J. Med. Sci. Clin. Res. 2016;4:11007–11012. [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Tiwari RR, Saha A, et al. Asthenopia (eyestrain) in working children of gem-polishing industries. Toxicol. Ind. Health. 2011;27(3):243–247. doi: 10.1177/0748233710386407. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Verma S, Midya U, et al. A cross-sectional study of the prevalence of computer vision syndrome and dry eye in computer operators. TNOA J. Ophthalmic Sci. Res. 2021;59(2):160. [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Poudel S, Khanal SP. Magnitude and determinants of computer vision syndrome (CVS) among IT workers in Kathmandu Nepal. Nepalese J. Ophthalmol. 2020;12(2):245–251. doi: 10.3126/nepjoph.v12i2.29387. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Sa EC, Ferreira Junior M, et al. Risk factors for computer visual syndrome (CVS) among operators of two call centers in São Paulo Brazil. Work. 2012;41(Suppl 1):3568–3574. doi: 10.3233/wor-2012-0636-3568. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Vilela MA, Castagno VD, et al. Asthenopia in schoolchildren. Clin. Ophthalmol. 2015;9:1595–1603. doi: 10.2147/opth.s84976. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Sawaya RIT, El Meski N, et al. Asthenopia among university students: The eye of the digital generation. J. Family Med. Primary Care. 2020;9(8):3921. doi: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_340_20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Uchino M, Yokoi N, et al. Prevalence of dry eye disease and its risk factors in visual display terminal users: the Osaka study. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2013;156(4):759–766. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2013.05.040. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Wangsan K, Upaphong P, et al. Self-reported computer vision syndrome among Thai university students in virtual classrooms during the COVID-19 pandemic: Prevalence and associated factors. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2022;19(7):3996. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19073996. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Akowuah, PK, Nti AN, et al., Research article digital device use, computer vision syndrome, and sleep quality among an African undergraduate population. 2021.
  • 84.Arshad, S, Khan A, et al., Prevalence of asthenopia among computer operators in Central India and effectiveness of educational intervention. 2019.
  • 85.Ranasinghe P, Wathurapatha WS, et al. Computer vision syndrome among computer office workers in a developing country: An evaluation of prevalence and risk factors. BMC Res. Notes. 2016;9:150. doi: 10.1186/s13104-016-1962-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Khan, S, Khan S, et al., (2021) Comparison of prevalence data about digital eye strain (DES), pre-lockdown versus post-lockdown period in India a systematic review study. Children. 17: 18 74
  • 87.Rosenfield M. Computer vision syndrome: A review of ocular causes and potential treatments. Ophthalmic Physiol. Opt. 2011;31(5):502–515. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-1313.2011.00834.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Adane F, Alamneh YM, et al. Computer vision syndrome and predictors among computer users in Ethiopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Tropical Med. Health. 2022;50(1):1–12. doi: 10.1186/s41182-022-00418-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Iqbal, M, Said O, et al., Visual sequelae of computer vision syndrome: A cross-sectional case-control study. J. Ophthalmol., 2021. 2021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary Information. (237.9KB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

All data are included in this manuscript and its supplementary information files.

Articles from Scientific Reports are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES