Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 331

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The African Descent and Glaucoma Evaluation Study (ADAGES): Design and Baseline Data

Open access
Sample, Pamela A.·2009·Archives of Ophthalmology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To identify factors accounting for differences in glaucoma onset and rate of progression between individuals of African descent and European descent. DESIGN: A prospective, multicenter observational cohort study of 1221 participants of African descent and European descent with no glaucoma (normal), suspected glaucoma, and glaucoma. Six hundred eighty-six patient participants in the African Descent and Glaucoma Evaluation Study will be followed up longitudinally. Four hundred thirty-six participants of European descent from the Diagnostic Innovations in Glaucoma Study (DIGS) were also included. Baseline demographics, visual function (standard automated perimetry, short-wavelength automated perimetry, frequency doubling technology perimetry), optic nerve structure (retina tomography, optical coherence tomography), clinical status, and risk factors were measured. RESULTS: Individuals of African descent had (1) thinner corneas (P < .001) across all diagnostic groups, (2) a higher percentage of reported diabetes mellitus (P < .001) and high blood pressure (P < .001) and a lower percentage of reported heart disease (P = .001), and (3) worse pattern standard deviation for standard automated perimetry fields overall (P = .001) and within normal limits (P = .01) than individuals of European descent. No differences were present for mean intraocular pressure (P = .79). CONCLUSIONS: Significant baseline differences were found in a number of clinical findings between persons of African descent compared with European descent. Longitudinal data from the African Descent and Glaucoma Evaluation Study will be important for determining which baseline features are important and predictive for accurate diagnosis and follow-up in this high-risk group. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00221923.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archophthalmol.2009.187

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

Show all 41 references

Cited by

See all 331

Metadata

Authors
Sample, P. A.
Venue
Archives of Ophthalmology
Published
2009-09-14
Volume
127
Issue
9
Pages
1136
ISSN
0003-9950 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2128959641
Cited by
331
References
41
FWCI
6.97
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: The African Descent and Glaucoma Evaluation Study (ADAGES): Design and Baseline Data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archophthalmol.2009.187
The paper
Sample, P. A. (2009). The African Descent and Glaucoma Evaluation Study (ADAGES): Design and Baseline Data. Archives of Ophthalmology. https://doi.org/10.1001/archophthalmol.2009.187

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.