The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Prevalence of Refractive Error in the United States, 1999-2004
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the prevalence of refractive error in the United States. METHODS: The 1999-2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) used an autorefractor to obtain refractive error data on a nationally representative sample of the US noninstitutionalized, civilian population 12 years and older. Using data from the eye with a greater absolute spherical equivalent (SphEq) value, we defined clinically important refractive error as follows: hyperopia, SphEq value of 3.0 diopters (D) or greater; myopia, SphEq value of -1.0 D or less; and astigmatism, cylinder of 1.0 D or greater in either eye. RESULTS: Of 14,213 participants 20 years or older who completed the NHANES, refractive error data were obtained for 12,010 (84.5%). The age-standardized prevalences of hyperopia, myopia, and astigmatism were 3.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.2%-4.0%), 33.1% (95% CI, 31.5%-34.7%), and 36.2% (95% CI, 34.9%-37.5%), respectively. Myopia was more prevalent in women (39.9%) than in men (32.6%) (P < .001) among 20- to 39-year-old participants. Persons 60 years or older were less likely to have myopia and more likely to have hyperopia and/or astigmatism than younger persons. Myopia was more common in non-Hispanic whites (35.2%) than in non-Hispanic blacks (28.6%) or Mexican Americans (25.1%) (P < .001 for both). CONCLUSION: Estimates based on the 1999-2004 NHANES vision examination data indicate that clinically important refractive error affects half of the US population 20 years or older.
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
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
Education and myopia: assessing the direction of causality by mendelian randomisation
Mountjoy, E., Davies, N. M., Plotnikov, D., Smith, G. D., Rodriguez, S., Williams, C. E., Guggenheim, J. A., & Atan, D. (2018) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.k2022 · Cited by 299
Salehi, M. A., Nowroozi, A., Gouravani, M., Mohammadi, S., & Arevalo, J. F. (2022) · Survey of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.survophthal.2021.07.007 · Cited by 46
Oh, S.-K., Kim, J.-M., Yoon, G.-Y., Yoo, Y.-S., & Kim, D. Y. (2024) · Photonics · doi:10.3390/photonics11040332 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Vitale, S.
- Venue
- Archives of Ophthalmology
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2008-08-11
- Volume
- 126
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1111
- ISSN
- 0003-9950 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1975128894
- Cited by
- 512
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 15.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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 Refractive Error in the United States, 1999-2004. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archopht.126.8.1111
- The paper
- Vitale, S. (2008). Prevalence of Refractive Error in the United States, 1999-2004. Archives of Ophthalmology. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.126.8.1111
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.