Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,145

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Prevalence of Retinal Vein Occlusion: Pooled Data from Population Studies from the United States, Europe, Asia, and Australia

Open access
Rogers, Sophie, McIntosh, Rachel L., Cheung, Ning, Lim, Lyndell, Wang, Jie Jin, Mitchell, Paul, Kowalski, Jonathan W., Nguyen, Hiep, Wong, Tien Y.·2010·Ophthalmology

Abstract

Objective To summarize the prevalence of retinal vein occlusion (RVO) from studies in the United States, Europe, Asia, and Australia. Design Pooled analysis using individual population-based data. Participants Individual participant data from population-based studies around the world that had ascertained RVO from fundus photographs. Methods Each study provided data on branch RVO and central RVO by age, sex, and ethnicity. Prevalence rates were directly age and sex standardized to the 2008 world population aged 30 years and older. Estimates were calculated by study and, after pooling, by ethnicity. Summary estimates included studies in which RVO was assessed from fundus photographs on ≥2 fields of both eyes. Main Outcome Measures Any RVO, CRVO, or BRVO. Results The combined pooled data contained 68,751 individuals from 15 studies, with participants’ ages ranging from 30 to 101 years. In analyses of 11 studies that assessed ≥2 fundus fields of both eyes (n=49,869), the age- and sex-standardized prevalence was 5.20 per 1000 (confidence interval [CI], 4.40–5.99) for any RVO, 4.42 per 1000 (CI, 3.65–5.19) for BRVO, and 0.80 per 1000 (CI, 0.61–0.99) for CRVO. Prevalence varied by race/ethnicity and increased with age, but did not differ by gender. The age- and sex-standardized prevalence of any RVO was 3.7 per 1000 (CI, 2.8–4.6) in whites (5 studies), 3.9 per 1000 (CI, 1.8–6.0) in blacks (1 study), 5.7 per 1000 (CI, 4.5–6.8) in Asians (6 studies), and 6.9 per 1000 (CI, 5.7–8.3) in Hispanics (3 studies). Prevalence for CRVO was lower than BRVO in all ethnic populations. On the basis of these data, an estimated 16.4 million (CI, 13.9–18.9) adults are affected by RVO, with 2.5 million (CI, 1.9–3.1) affected by CRVO and 13.9 million (CI, 11.5–16.4) affected by BRVO. Study limitations include non-uniform sampling frames in identifying study participants and in acquisition and grading of RVO data. Conclusions Our study provides summary data on the prevalence of RVO and suggests that approximately 16 million people may have this condition. Research on preventive and treatment strategies for this sight-threatening eye disease is needed.

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 · 10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.07.017

Cites

5 of 5 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 5 references

Cited by

See all 1,145

Metadata

Authors
Rogers, S., McIntosh, R. L., Cheung, N., Lim, L., Wang, J. J., Mitchell, P., Kowalski, J. W., Nguyen, H., & Wong, T. Y.
Venue
Ophthalmology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-02
Volume
117
Issue
2
Pages
313-319.e1
ISSN
0161-6420 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1978704499
Cited by
1,145
References
5
FWCI
24.71
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 Prevalence of Retinal Vein Occlusion: Pooled Data from Population Studies from the United States, Europe, Asia, and Australia. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.07.017
The paper
Rogers, S., McIntosh, R. L., Cheung, N., Lim, L., Wang, J. J., Mitchell, P., Kowalski, J. W., Nguyen, H., & Wong, T. Y. (2010). The Prevalence of Retinal Vein Occlusion: Pooled Data from Population Studies from the United States, Europe, Asia, and Australia. Ophthalmology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.07.017

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.