Cited by 191Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment StudiesGlaucoma and retinal disordersRetinal Diseases and Treatments

Age-Specific Causes of Bilateral Visual Impairment

Weih, LeAnn M.·2000·Archives of Ophthalmology

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To describe the age-specific prevalence of common eye diseases causing bilateral visual impairment and estimate the total number of Australians with cause-specific visual impairment. METHODS: Cluster-stratified random sample of 5147 residents aged 40 years and older from urban and rural areas and aged-care facilities. Participants completed a standardized interview and eye examination. Four levels of bilateral visual impairment were defined: less than 20/40 to 20/60 and/or homonymous hemianopia (mild), less than 20/60 to 20/200 or better and/or less than 20 degrees to 10 degrees radius field (moderate), less than 20/200 to 10/200 and/or less than 10 degrees to 5 degrees radius field (severe), and less than 1O/ 200 and/or less than 50 radius field (profound). The major cause of vision loss was identified for all participants found to be visually impaired. RESULTS: Uncorrected refractive error was the most common cause of bilateral visual impairment across all decades of life, rising from 0.5% in 40- to 49-year-olds to 13% among those aged 80 years and older. Prevalence of visual impairment due to diabetic retinopathy was 0.7% in 50- to 59-year-olds and 0.8% in those older than 80 years. Visual impairment due to glaucoma had a prevalence of 0.7% among 60-year-olds and rose to 4% of those older than 90 years. The prevalence of visual impairment due to cataract (only present in those aged 70 years or older) rose from 0.6% to 11% in those older than 90 years, and the prevalence of visual impairment due to age-related macular degeneration rose from 0.8% to 16% in those older than 90 years. CONCLUSIONS: The predominant causes of visual impairment change with age. Recognition of these patterns is fundamental for early diagnosis and treatment of eye disease and, where appropriate, referral for rehabilitation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archopht.118.2.264

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Weih, L. M.
Affiliations
The University of Melbourne (AU)
Corresponding author
Weih, LeAnn M.
Venue
Archives of Ophthalmology
Published
2000-02-01
Volume
118
Issue
2
Pages
264
ISSN
0003-9950 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1972254536
Cited by
191
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 5
FWCI
12.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of Ophthalmology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Glaucoma and retinal disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Retinal Diseases and Treatments
Keywords
bilateral visual impairment, age-specific prevalence, uncorrected refractive error, diabetic retinopathy, glaucoma, cataract, age-related macular degeneration, homonymous hemianopia, visual field defects, older adults, eye diseases
MeSH terms
Adult, Age Factors, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Eye Diseases, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Rural Population, Urban Population, Victoria, Vision Disorders, Visual Acuity, Prevalence, Persons with Visual Disabilities, Visually Impaired Persons

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