The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Prevalence of Cataract and Pseudophakia/Aphakia Among Adults in theUnited States
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence of cataract and pseudophakia/aphakia in the United States and to project the expected change in these prevalence figures by 2020. METHODS: Summary prevalence estimates of cataract and of pseudophakia/aphakia were prepared separately for black, white, and Hispanic persons (for whom only cataract surgery data were available) in 5-year age intervals starting at 40 years for women and men. The estimates were based on a standardized definition of various types of cataract: cortical, greater than 25% of the lens involved; posterior subcapsular, present according to the grading system used in each study; and nuclear, greater than or equal to the penultimate grade in the system used. Data were collected from major population-based studies in the United States, and, where appropriate, Australia, Barbados, and Western Europe. The age-, gender-, and race/ethnicity-specific rates were applied to 2000 US Census data, and projected population figures for 2020, to obtain overall estimates. RESULTS: An estimated 20.5 million (17.2%) Americans older than 40 years have cataract in either eye, and 6.1 million (5.1%) have pseudophakia/aphakia. Women have a significantly (odds ratio = 1.37; 95% confidence interval, 1.26-1.50) higher age-adjusted prevalence of cataract than men in the United States. The total number of persons who have cataract is estimated to rise to 30.1 million by 2020; and for those who are expected to have pseudophakia/aphakia, to 9.5 million. CONCLUSION: The number of Americans affected by cataract and undergoing cataract surgery will dramatically increase over the next 20 years as the US population ages.
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
Cited by
Critical review: vegetables and fruit in the prevention of chronic diseases
Boeing, H., Bechthold, A., Bub, A., Ellinger, S., Haller, D., Kroke, A., Leschik-Bonnet, E., Müller, M. J., Oberritter, H., Schulze, M., et al. (2012) · European Journal of Nutrition · doi:10.1007/s00394-012-0380-y · Cited by 1,755
Stewart, F. A., Akleyev, A. V., Hauer-Jensen, M., Hendry, J. H., Kleiman, N. J., MacVittie, T. J., Aleman, B. M., Edgar, A. B., Mabuchi, K., Muirhead, C. R., et al. (2012) · Annals of the ICRP · doi:10.1016/j.icrp.2012.02.001 · Cited by 1,604
Hashemi, H., Pakzad, R., Yekta, A., Aghamirsalim, M., Pakbin, M., Ramin, S., & Khabazkhoob, M. (2020) · Eye · doi:10.1038/s41433-020-0806-3 · Cited by 395
Saaddine, J. B. (2008) · Archives of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1001/archopht.126.12.1740 · Cited by 377
Zhang, X., Cotch, M. F., Ryskulova, A., Primo, S. A., Nair, P., Chou, C.-F., Geiss, L. S., Barker, L. E., Elliott, A. F., Crews, J. E., et al. (2012) · American Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2011.08.045 · Cited by 277
Metadata
- Venue
- Archives of Ophthalmology
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2004-04-01
- Volume
- 122
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 487
- ISSN
- 0003-9950 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1428480121
- Cited by
- 577
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 20.32
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Prevalence of Cataract and Pseudophakia/Aphakia Among Adults in theUnited States. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archopht.122.4.487
- The paper
- Prevalence of Cataract and Pseudophakia/Aphakia Among Adults in theUnited States. (2004). Archives of Ophthalmology. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.122.4.487
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.