The Prevalence of Age-Related Maculopathy by Geographic Region and Ethnicity: The Colorado-Wisconsin Study of Age-Related Maculopathy
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence of age-related maculopathy (ARM) in a biethnic population and to determine if there are ethnic and/or geographic differences in the prevalence of ARM. DESIGN: Prevalence data from 2 population-based studies, the San Luis Valley Diabetes Study (n = 1541, ages 21-74 years) and the Beaver Dam Eye Study (n = 3999, ages 43-74 years), were compared. SETTING: Southern Colorado and central Wisconsin. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Color stereoscopic fundus photographs were graded for ARM using the Wisconsin Age-related Maculopathy Grading System. Similar questionnaire, laboratory, and clinical data on potential risk factors were available from both studies. RESULTS: Late-stage ARM was significantly less frequent among Hispanics than non-Hispanic whites (NHW) in Beaver Dam (odds ratio [OR] = 0.07; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.01-0.49; Hispanics vs Beaver Dam NHW). The prevalence of any ARM was significantly lower among San Luis Valley NHW (10.4%) than Beaver Dam NHW (14.3%) (OR = 0.67; 95% CI = 0.50-0.91). This prevalence difference was not explained by any of the risk factors examined (smoking, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, alcohol consumption, etc). The 2 NHW groups reported different European heritages. CONCLUSIONS: Late-stage ARM appeared to be rare among Hispanics but there was no ethnic difference in prevalence of any ARM. The 33% difference in risk among NHW by geographic location was not reduced when controlling for possible risk factors or confounders, suggesting that genetic heritage may be an important determinant of risk for ARM.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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 [24]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 24 · Cited by 131
- Authors
- Cruickshanks, K. J.
- Affiliations
- University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
- Corresponding author
- Cruickshanks, Karen J.
- Venue
- Archives of Ophthalmology
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 1997-02-01
- Volume
- 115
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 242
- ISSN
- 0003-9950 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2130145196
- Cited by
- 131
- References
- 24
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 4 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 5.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Archives of Ophthalmology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (5r01ey010252-02)
- National Eye Institute (EY10252)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Retinal Diseases and Treatments
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Retinal Imaging and Analysis
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
- Keywords
- age-related maculopathy, prevalence, ethnic differences, Hispanic Americans, non-Hispanic whites, regional variation, genetic heritage, risk factors, Beaver Dam Eye Study
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Colorado, Ethnicity, Female, Fundus Oculi, Humans, Macular Degeneration, Male, Middle Aged, Photography, Risk Factors, Wisconsin, Prevalence, Racial Groups
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