Cited by 251Retinal Diseases and TreatmentsRetinal Imaging and AnalysisOcular Diseases and Behçet’s Syndrome

The Grading and Prevalence of Macular Degeneration in Chesapeake Bay Watermen

Bressler, Neil M.·1989·Archives of Ophthalmology

Abstract

A new grading scheme was developed to classify the fundus features of macular degeneration. This scheme identifies the earliest fundus changes associated with macular degeneration, as well as specific drusen characteristics felt to be associated with an increased risk of developing the exudative forms of this disease. Agreement between two graders using this scheme indicated good interobserver reliability. Using this scheme, fundus photographs of 777 participants were graded in a population-based study of watermen from the eastern shore of Maryland. The prevalence of at least one druse within 1500 microns of the foveal center was extremely common (over 80% in each age group over 30 years of age) and not age related. The prevalence of large, confluent, or soft drusen was relatively uncommon and was age related; by the eighth decade, 26% of all participants had large or soft drusen, and 17% of them had confluent drusen. These latter characteristics are more likely to be markers of early changes consistent with age-related macular degeneration rather than simply the presence of a few drusen.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archopht.1989.01070010869032

Cites

11 of 11 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?

  • Age is the strongest risk factor for age-related macular degeneration; all population-based studies confirm that the prevalence of age-related macular degeneration increases with age in white individuals.

    “Age is the strongest risk factor for age-related macular degeneration; all population-based studies confirm that the prevalence of age-related macular degeneration increases with age in white individuals.3,22–27”

    From Age-related macular degeneration (2008) · cites this paper as [26]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bressler, N. M.
Affiliations
Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Bressler, Neil M.
Venue
Archives of Ophthalmology
Published
1989-06-01
Volume
107
Issue
6
Pages
847
ISSN
0003-9950 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2081972722
Cited by
251
References
11
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 11
FWCI
8.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of Ophthalmology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Eye Institute (EY-04547)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Retinal Diseases and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Retinal Imaging and Analysis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Ocular Diseases and Behçet’s Syndrome
Keywords
age-related macular degeneration, drusen, prevalence, watermen, Chesapeake Bay, inter-rater reliability, fundus photography, soft drusen
MeSH terms
Adult, Age Factors, Aged, Atrophy, Cross-Sectional Studies, Exudates and Transudates, Humans, Hyperplasia, Macular Degeneration, Male, Maryland, Middle Aged, Ophthalmoscopy, Photography, Pigment Epithelium of Eye, Population Surveillance, Retina, Retinitis Pigmentosa, Risk Factors

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