Results of the summarizing process for the paper: DOI: 10.1186/s12887-026-07266-8

This systematic review and meta-analysis examined whether exercise interventions improve vision and slow myopia progression in children and adolescents. It assessed functional outcomes—dynamic and static visual acuity—and structural measures, including refractive error and axial length. The authors also explored whether outcomes varied according to exercise type, frequency, duration, and setting. The researchers searched CNKI, Wanfang, PubMed, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials of exercise interventions in children and adolescents. They included 31 studies involving 9,892 participants. Meta-analyses estimated overall effects, while subgroup and sensitivity analyses assessed differences between interventions and the robustness of the results. Multivariable meta-regression explored potential sources of variation across studies. Statistical analyses were conducted using Stata 18.0 and R 4.6.0. Exercise was associated with improvements in both measures of visual acuity. Dynamic visual acuity improved by a moderate amount (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21 to 0.96; P < 0.001). Static visual acuity also improved (SMD 0.69; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.92; P < 0.001). Exercise was associated with a smaller but statistically significant improvement in refractive error (SMD 0.29; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.45; P < 0.001). For axial length, the pooled effect was −0.13 (95% CI, −0.19 to −0.07; P < 0.001), which the authors interpreted as evidence that exercise may inhibit axial elongation. Subgroup analyses suggested that the features associated with better outcomes differed by visual measure. Dynamic visual acuity improved more among students in grades 1–3 and in programs involving vision training, four to six sessions per week, or 120–300 minutes of exercise per week. Programs combining indoor and outdoor settings produced the largest effects for this outcome. More favorable static visual acuity results were associated with physical and mental health exercises, ball sports, one to three sessions per week, and weekly exercise durations of 120–300 minutes. In multivariable meta-regression, intervention setting remained a potential independent moderator of dynamic visual acuity, while differences among some exercise types weakened after adjustment. The authors found no stable or significant independent moderators of static visual acuity. Axial-length results showed low heterogeneity, indicating relatively consistent findings across the included studies. The reported results also remained robust after correction for CRVE, although the abstract does not explain this correction. The authors concluded that exercise may serve as a useful addition to broader myopia prevention and management. It appears to improve visual acuity and may modestly benefit refractive error while limiting axial elongation. Although intervention type, setting, and dose may influence outcomes, the subgroup findings should not be treated as definitive recommendations. This summary is based only on the title and abstract because the paper’s license does not permit access to the full text. As a result, information needed to assess the evidence—such as study quality, risk of bias, variation in outcome measurement, and the practical significance of the standardized effects—is unavailable. The abstract also does not provide enough information to determine how well the findings apply to different populations or how exercise compares with established myopia-control treatments.

• A meta-analysis of 31 randomized controlled trials involving 9,892 children and adolescents assessed exercise’s effects on vision and myopia progression.
• Exercise was associated with improved dynamic and static visual acuity, a modest improvement in refractive error, and reduced axial elongation.
• Subgroup results linked different exercise types, settings, and doses with better outcomes, but these findings are not definitive recommendations.
• Intervention setting may independently influence dynamic visual acuity; no stable independent moderators were identified for static visual acuity.
• Axial-length findings showed low heterogeneity, and the results remained robust after the authors’ CRVE correction.
• Exercise may complement broader myopia prevention and management, but the abstract does not establish how it compares with proven myopia-control treatments.
• Because only the title and abstract were available, study quality, risk of bias, measurement differences, practical effect size, and applicability to different populations could not be assessed.

Summary1. Scientists studied 31 trials with almost 10,000 children to learn how exercise may affect eyesight and nearsightedness. 2. Exercise was linked to seeing moving and still things more clearly, and to small changes in how the eyes focus. 3. Some kinds of exercise, places, and amounts seemed to have different effects, but the findings are not firm advice. 4. Exercise may help protect eyesight, but the study does not show that it works as well as treatments made for nearsightedness. 5. The researchers could not check all the study details, so we do not know how strong or useful the results are for every child. Definitions- nearsightedness: A condition that makes faraway things look blurry. - eyesight: How well someone can see. - trial: A study that tests whether something works. - focus: The way the eye makes things look clear.

Can Exercise Help Protect Children’s Vision?

Regular exercise is well known to support children’s overall health. But could it also help improve eyesight or slow the physical changes associated with myopia, commonly called nearsightedness? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials examined that question, bringing together evidence from nearly 10,000 children and adolescents.

The findings suggest that exercise may improve both dynamic and static visual acuity. The analysis also found smaller favorable changes in refractive error and results consistent with reduced eye growth. However, the evidence does not establish exercise as a replacement for established myopia-control care, and some details needed to judge the results are not available from the paper’s abstract.

What the Researchers Examined

The researchers searched four databases—CNKI, Wanfang, PubMed, and Web of Science—for randomized controlled trials of exercise interventions in children and adolescents. In total, they included 31 studies involving 9,892 participants.

The review assessed two kinds of functional vision outcomes: dynamic visual acuity, or the ability to see clearly while an object or the viewer is moving, and static visual acuity, the ability to see clearly when stationary. It also examined refractive error and axial length, a measure of the eye’s front-to-back size. Increased axial length is associated with myopia progression.

In addition to estimating the overall effects of exercise, the authors explored whether results differed according to exercise type, frequency, weekly duration, and setting. They used subgroup analyses, sensitivity analyses, and meta-regression to investigate possible differences among studies.

What the Meta-Analysis Found

Visual acuity improved

Exercise was associated with improvements in both measures of visual acuity. Dynamic visual acuity showed a moderate improvement (standardized mean difference, or SMD, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.21 to 0.96). Static visual acuity also improved (SMD 0.69; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.92). Both findings were statistically significant.

These standardized effects summarize differences across studies that may have used different measurement scales. They indicate a favorable pattern, but the abstract does not give enough information to translate the results into a specific, everyday change in a child’s vision.

Refractive error and eye growth showed smaller effects

The pooled result for refractive error was favorable but smaller (SMD 0.29; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.45). For axial length, the effect was −0.13 (95% CI, −0.19 to −0.07). The authors interpreted this as evidence that exercise may help inhibit axial elongation.

Axial-length findings had low heterogeneity, meaning results were relatively consistent across the included studies. The authors also reported that results remained robust after correction for CRVE, though the abstract does not explain what that correction involved.

Did the Type or Dose of Exercise Matter?

Subgroup findings differed depending on which vision outcome was measured. For dynamic visual acuity, stronger results were associated with younger students in grades 1–3 and programs that included vision training. More favorable outcomes were also linked with four to six sessions per week, 120–300 minutes of exercise per week, and a combination of indoor and outdoor settings.

For static visual acuity, better results were associated with physical and mental health exercises, ball sports, one to three sessions per week, and 120–300 minutes of weekly activity. These patterns should be treated as exploratory rather than as a proven prescription. In the adjusted meta-regression, setting remained a potential independent moderator for dynamic visual acuity, while some differences between exercise types weakened. No stable, significant independent moderators were identified for static visual acuity.

How to Interpret the Findings

Overall, the review suggests that exercise may be a useful addition to broader efforts to support children’s eye health. It was associated with better visual acuity, a modest improvement in refractive error, and less axial elongation. These results are encouraging, but they do not show that every exercise program will have the same effect or that exercise alone can prevent or treat myopia.

There are important limits to what can be concluded. This summary is based on the paper’s title and abstract because the full text was not accessible under its license. The abstract does not provide key information needed to evaluate the strength of the evidence, including study quality, risk of bias, differences in outcome measurement, or the practical importance of the reported effects. It also does not show how well the results apply to different populations or how exercise compares with established myopia-control treatments.

The Bottom Line

Across 31 trials, exercise was linked to improvements in visual acuity and small favorable changes in measures related to myopia. The findings support exercise as a potentially helpful part of a child’s overall health routine, not as a substitute for professional eye care or proven myopia-management approaches. The suggested exercise types, settings, and schedules are promising clues for future research—not definitive recommendations.