Cited by 74Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment StudiesGlaucoma and retinal disordersRetinal Diseases and Treatments

Population-Based Studies in Ophthalmology

Wong, Tien Y., Hyman, Leslie·2008·American Journal of Ophthalmology

Abstract

Purpose To review major findings of population-based studies in ophthalmology, to summarize key questions, and to highlight future directions for this study design.Design Summary and critical analysis of major population-based studies in eye diseases.Methods Literature review and interpretation.Results In the last 30 years, there have been many population-based studies in ophthalmology conducted in the United States and other countries around the world. These studies have provided information on the epidemiology of visual loss and the major eye diseases associated with visual loss; the risk factors; and the socioeconomic burden of eye disease. Population-based studies remain the most valid to determine the prevalence and incidence of a disease, and the population-attributable risk of new risk factors, including the interaction of genetic markers with systemic and environmental factors. Repeated surveys over time may also demonstrate impact of preventive strategies.Conclusions Population-based studies have provided substantial data on the frequency and impact of the major eye diseases in the community. This study design will continue to have an important role in addressing key questions of why eye diseases occur, who is at highest risk, and what preventive and therapeutic strategies are necessary to eliminate these diseases.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ajo.2008.07.048

Cites

53 of 53 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?

  • Large, epidemiological, cohort studies remove temporal or causal ambiguity because exposure precedes disease, and if follow-up is not biased, selection bias is less of a problem than in other study designs.

    “Large, epidemiological, cohort studies had the advantage over other study designs in that they removed any temporal or causal ambiguity as the exposure precedes the disease and if follow-up is not biased selection bias is less of a problem than in other study designs [90].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 54 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wong, T. Y., & Hyman, L.
Affiliations
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • Stony Brook University Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Wong, Tien Y.
Venue
American Journal of Ophthalmology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-11
Volume
146
Issue
5
Pages
656-663
ISSN
0002-9394 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2135990638
Cited by
74
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 9
FWCI
0.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Ophthalmology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • National University of Singapore (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Glaucoma and retinal disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Retinal Diseases and Treatments
Keywords
population-based study, eye diseases, vision loss, eye disease epidemiology, incidence and prevalence, risk factors, socioeconomic burden, population attributable risk, genetic markers, preventive strategies, cross-sectional survey
MeSH terms
Cataract, Diabetic Retinopathy, Eye Diseases, Glaucoma, Humans, Macular Degeneration, United States, Vision Disorders, Global Health, Incidence, 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