The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Age-Specific Prevalence and Causes of Blindness and Visual Impairment in an Older Population: The Rotterdam Study
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To study the prevalence and causes of blindness and visual impairment in various age categories of a large population-based study. METHODS: For the study, 6775 subjects aged 55 years or older underwent an extensive ophthalmologic screening examination, including measurements of visual acuity and the visual field and fundus photography. The causes of blindness or visual impairment were determined using all screening information and medical records. RESULTS: The prevalence of blindness, according to World Health Organization criteria, ranged from 0.1% in subjects aged 55 to 64 years to 3.9% in subjects aged 85 years or older; the prevalence of visual impairment ranged from 0.1% to 11.8%. For persons younger than 75 years, myopic degeneration and optic neuropathy were the most important causes of impaired vision. For persons aged 75 years or older, age-related macular degeneration was the major cause of the increased prevalence of blindness, whereas age-related cataract predominantly caused the increased prevalence of visual impairment. CONCLUSIONS: The hierarchy of causes of blindness and visual impairment is highly determined by age. As yet, little can be done to reduce the exponential increase of blindness; however, adequate implementation of surgery to treat cataract could reduce visual impairment by one third. Underuse of ophthalmologic care is a prominent cause of the high frequency of untreated cataracts among the elderly.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R. (1975) · Journal of Psychiatric Research · doi:10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6 · Cited by 88,282
Reichard, P., Nilsson, B.-Y., & Rosenqvist, U. (1993) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199307293290502 · Cited by 1,202
Racial Differences in the Cause-Specific Prevalence of Blindness in East Baltimore
Sommer, A., Tielsch, J. M., Katz, J., Quigley, H. A., Gottsch, J. D., Javitt, J. C., Martone, J. F., Royall, R. M., Witt, K. A., & Ezrine, S. (1991) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199111143252004 · Cited by 764
Epidemiology of proliferative diabetic retinopathy
Klein, R., Klein, B. E. K., & Moss, S. E. (1992) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/diacare.15.12.1875 · Cited by 344
Cited by
Causes and Prevalence of Visual Impairment Among Adults in the UnitedStates
(2004) · Archives of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1001/archopht.122.4.477 · Cited by 2,616
Rivera, A., Fisher, S. A., Fritsche, L. G., Keilhauer, C. N., Lichtner, P., Meitinger, T., & Weber, B. H. F. (2005) · Human Molecular Genetics · doi:10.1093/hmg/ddi353 · Cited by 788
The Natural History and Prognosis of Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration
Wong, T., Chakravarthy, U., Klein, R., Mitchell, P., Zlateva, G., Buggage, R., Fahrbach, K., Probst, C., & Sledge, I. (2008) · Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.03.008 · Cited by 601
Muñoz, B. (2000) · Archives of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1001/archopht.118.6.819 · Cited by 521
Metadata
- Authors
- Klaver, C. C. W.
- Venue
- Archives of Ophthalmology
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 1998-05-01
- Volume
- 116
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 653
- ISSN
- 0003-9950 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2003586642
- Cited by
- 881
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 14.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.