The Need for a Revised Approach to Epidemiological Monitoring of the Prevalence of Visual Impairment

Kempen, John H.

doi:10.3109/09286586.2011.588908

Cited by 14 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Such limitations were acknowledged and discussed within the studies. [710] Thylefors[7] exemplifies these shortcomings, indicating the necessity of standardized protocols, as the estimates for the total blind in 1978, 1984, and 1990 could not be compared due to employment of three incompatible methodologies. Prior to 1990, the data are not widely available on the individual causes of blindness or vision impairment.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A rapid style survey has been often encouraged to reduce the strain on resources. [101921] Some rapid protocol tools, such as the rapid assessment of cataract surgical services (RACSS), only provide a basic eye examination. Hence they have a predilection for diagnosing anterior eye disease, such as cataracts, which can subsequently result in over-representations of such diseases as the primary cause of blindness.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Future trends in global blindness

Resnikoff

Keys

2012

Indian J Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this review is to discuss the available data on the prevalence and causes of global blindness, and some of the associated trends and limitations seen. A literature search was conducted using the terms “global AND blindness” and “global AND vision AND impairment”, resulting in seven appropriate articles for this review. Since 1990 the estimate of global prevalence of blindness has gradually decreased when considering the best corrected visual acuity definition: 0.71% in 1990, 0.59% in 2002, and 0.55% in 2010, corresponding to a 0.73% reduction per year over the 2002–2010 period. Significant limitations were found in the comparability between the global estimates in prevalence or causes of blindness or visual impairment. These limitations arise from various factors such as uncertainties about the true cause of the impairment, the use of different definitions and methods, and the absence of data from a number of geographical areas, leading to various extrapolation methods, which in turn seriously limit comparability. Seminal to this discussion on limitations in the comparability of studies and data, is that blindness has historically been defined using best corrected visual acuity.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Future trends in global blindness

Resnikoff

Keys

2012

Indian J Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In situations where multiple disorders contribute equally to visual loss, only the ‘‘most easily preventable” or the ‘‘most readily curable” cause is usually recorded [ 52 ]. This approach can underestimate the impact of diseases such as diabetic retinopathy and glaucoma when a study participant presents with cataract, while underestimating cataract burden when study participants also have an uncorrected refractive error [ 53 ]. Finally, the relatively small sample size of some studies meant that the confidence intervals of cause-specific prevalence estimates were relatively large.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Number of People Blind or Visually Impaired by Glaucoma Worldwide and in World Regions 1990 – 2010: A Meta-Analysis

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo assess the number of individuals visually impaired or blind due to glaucoma and to examine regional differences and temporal changes in this parameter for the period from 1990 to 2012.MethodsAs part of the Global Burden of Diseases (GBD) Study 2010, we performed a systematic literature review for the period from 1980 to 2012. We primarily identified 14,908 relevant manuscripts, out of which 243 high-quality, population-based studies remained after review by an expert panel that involved application of selection criteria that dwelt on population representativeness and clarity of visual acuity methods used. Sixty-six specified the proportion attributable to glaucoma. The software tool DisMod-MR (Disease Modeling–Metaregression) of the GBD was used to calculate fraction of vision impairment due to glaucoma.ResultsIn 2010, 2.1 million (95% Uncertainty Interval (UI):1.9,2.6) people were blind, and 4.2 (95% UI:3.7,5.8) million were visually impaired due to glaucoma. Glaucoma caused worldwide 6.6% (95% UI:5.9,7.9) of all blindness in 2010 and 2.2% (95% UI:2.0,2.8) of all moderate and severe visual impairment (MSVI). These figures were lower in regions with younger populations (<5% in South Asia) than in high-income regions with relatively old populations (>10%). From 1990 to 2010, the number of blind or visually impaired due to glaucoma increased by 0.8 million (95%UI:0.7, 1.1) or 62% and by 2.3 million (95%UI:2.1,3.5) or 83%, respectively. Percentage of global blindness caused by glaucoma increased between 1990 and 2010 from 4.4% (4.0,5.1) to 6.6%. Age-standardized prevalence of glaucoma related blindness and MSVI did not differ markedly between world regions nor between women.SignificanceBy 2010, one out of 15 blind people was blind due to glaucoma, and one of 45 visually impaired people was visually impaired, highlighting the increasing global burden of glaucoma.

show abstract

“…Most of the surveys were conducted after the year 2000, which limits the precision of the trends analysis. Local rapid assessment surveys may overestimate cataract blindness as the principal cause of impairment and may not be generalisable to the national level 27 28. In accordance with the WHO global action plan to prevent blindness during the period 2014–2019,3 the undertaking of nationally representative cross-sectional studies generates important evidence for planning eye care services.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%