The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Prevalence of Refractive Errors Among Adults in the United States,Western Europe, and Australia
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of refractive errors in persons 40 years and older. METHODS: Counts of persons with phakic eyes with and without spherical equivalent refractive error in the worse eye of +3 diopters (D) or greater, -1 D or less, and -5 D or less were obtained from population-based eye surveys in strata of gender, race/ethnicity, and 5-year age intervals. Pooled age-, gender-, and race/ethnicity-specific rates for each refractive error were applied to the corresponding stratum-specific US, Western European, and Australian populations (years 2000 and projected 2020). RESULTS: Six studies provided data from 29 281 persons. In the US, Western European, and Australian year 2000 populations 40 years or older, the estimated crude prevalence for hyperopia of +3 D or greater was 9.9%, 11.6%, and 5.8%, respectively (11.8 million, 21.6 million, and 0.47 million persons). For myopia of -1 D or less, the estimated crude prevalence was 25.4%, 26.6%, and 16.4% (30.4 million, 49.6 million, and 1.3 million persons), respectively, of whom 4.5%, 4.6%, and 2.8% (5.3 million, 8.5 million, and 0.23 million persons), respectively, had myopia of -5 D or less. Projected prevalence rates in 2020 were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Refractive errors affect approximately one third of persons 40 years or older in the United States and Western Europe, and one fifth of Australians in this age group.
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
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
Self-citationMyopia as a Risk Factor for Open-Angle Glaucoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Marcus, M. W., de Vries, M. M., Montolio, F. G. J., & Jansonius, N. M. (2011) · Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.03.012 · Cited by 658
Time outdoors and the prevention of myopia
French, A. N., Ashby, R. S., Morgan, I. G., & Rose, K. A. (2013) · Experimental Eye Research · doi:10.1016/j.exer.2013.04.018 · Cited by 395
Wolf, S., Balciuniene, V. J., Laganovska, G., Menchini, U., Ohno-Matsui, K., Sharma, T., Wong, T. Y., Silva, R., Pilz, S., & Gekkieva, M. (2014) · Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.10.023 · Cited by 317
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
- 495
- ISSN
- 0003-9950 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2405445698
- Cited by
- 662
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 11.25
- 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: The Prevalence of Refractive Errors Among Adults in the United States,Western Europe, and Australia. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archopht.122.4.495
- The paper
- The Prevalence of Refractive Errors Among Adults in the United States,Western Europe, and Australia. (2004). Archives of Ophthalmology. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.122.4.495
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.