CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,196Retinal Diseases and TreatmentsRetinal Imaging and AnalysisDiabetes Management and Research

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

Prevalence of Diabetic Retinopathy in the United States, 2005-2008

Open access
Zhang, Xinzhi, Saaddine, Jinan B., Chou, Chiu-Fang, Cotch, Mary Frances, Cheng, Yiling J., Geiss, Linda S., Gregg, Edward W., Albright, Ann L., Klein, Barbara E. K., Klein, Ronald·2010·JAMA
DOI 10.1001/jama.2010.1111PMC PMC2945293
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

CONTEXT: The prevalence of diabetes in the United States has increased. People with diabetes are at risk for diabetic retinopathy. No recent national population-based estimate of the prevalence and severity of diabetic retinopathy exists. OBJECTIVES: To describe the prevalence and risk factors of diabetic retinopathy among US adults with diabetes aged 40 years and older. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Analysis of a cross-sectional, nationally representative sample of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2005-2008 (N = 1006). Diabetes was defined as a self-report of a previous diagnosis of the disease (excluding gestational diabetes mellitus) or glycated hemoglobin A(1c) of 6.5% or greater. Two fundus photographs were taken of each eye with a digital nonmydriatic camera and were graded using the Airlie House classification scheme and the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study severity scale. Prevalence estimates were weighted to represent the civilian, noninstitutionalized US population aged 40 years and older. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Diabetic retinopathy and vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy. RESULTS: The estimated prevalence of diabetic retinopathy and vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy was 28.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 24.9%-32.5%) and 4.4% (95% CI, 3.5%-5.7%) among US adults with diabetes, respectively. Diabetic retinopathy was slightly more prevalent among men than women with diabetes (31.6%; 95% CI, 26.8%-36.8%; vs 25.7%; 95% CI, 21.7%-30.1%; P = .04). Non-Hispanic black individuals had a higher crude prevalence than non-Hispanic white individuals of diabetic retinopathy (38.8%; 95% CI, 31.9%-46.1%; vs 26.4%; 95% CI, 21.4%-32.2%; P = .01) and vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy (9.3%; 95% CI, 5.9%-14.4%; vs 3.2%; 95% CI, 2.0%-5.1%; P = .01). Male sex was independently associated with the presence of diabetic retinopathy (odds ratio [OR], 2.07; 95% CI, 1.39-3.10), as well as higher hemoglobin A(1c) level (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.20-1.75), longer duration of diabetes (OR, 1.06 per year duration; 95% CI, 1.03-1.10), insulin use (OR, 3.23; 95% CI, 1.99-5.26), and higher systolic blood pressure (OR, 1.03 per mm Hg; 95% CI, 1.02-1.03). CONCLUSION: In a nationally representative sample of US adults with diabetes aged 40 years and older, the prevalence of diabetic retinopathy and vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy was high, especially among Non-Hispanic black individuals.

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/jama.2010.1111

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

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?

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

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Zhang, X., Saaddine, J. B., Chou, C.-F., Cotch, M. F., Cheng, Y. J., Geiss, L. S., Gregg, E. W., Albright, A. L., Klein, B. E. K., & Klein, R.
Affiliations
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US)
Corresponding author
Zhang, Xinzhi
ORCID
Venue
JAMA
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
2010-08-11
Volume
304
Issue
6
Pages
649
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
DOI
10.1001/jama.2010.1111
PMC
PMC2945293
OpenAlex
W2049036672
Cited by
1,196
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 62 · 2024: 83 · 2023: 109 · 2022: 82 · 2021: 131 · 2020: 104 · 2019: 91 · 2018: 71 · 2017: 70 · 2016: 66 · 2015: 81 · 2014: 62 · 2013: 65 · 2012: 59
FWCI
55.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (Z99 EY999999)
  • U.S. Public Health Service (05FED47304)
  • National Eye Institute (ZIAEY000402, Z01EY000402)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Retinal Diseases and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Retinal Imaging and Analysis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
Keywords
diabetic retinopathy, prevalence, vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy, diabetes mellitus, risk factors, sex differences, racial disparities, non-Hispanic Black adults, fundus photography, adults aged 40 and older, United States adults
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Black or African American, Cross-Sectional Studies, Diabetic Retinopathy, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Nutrition Surveys, Risk Factors, United States, Vision Disorders, Prevalence

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