Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 208

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Visual Impairment in Australia: Distance Visual Acuity, Near Vision, and Visual Field Findings of the Melbourne Visual Impairment Project

Open access
TAYLOR, HUGH R., LIVINGSTON, PATRICIA M., STANISLAVSKY, YURY L., MCCARTY, CATHERINE A.·1997·American Journal of Ophthalmology

Abstract

PURPOSE To describe the age-specific and gender-specific rates of blindness and visual impairment in urban adults aged 40 years and older. METHODS A population-based sample of residents was recruited. Presenting and best-corrected distance visual acuities were assessed. Functional near vision was measured at each participant's preferred distance. Visual field examination was performed with a Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA); those unable to perform the field analyzer test attempted a Bjerrum screen or confrontation field. RESULTS The study population comprised 3,271 residents (83% of eligible) from ages 40 to 98 years; 54% were women. Overall, 56% of the study population wore distance correction; this was significantly lower in men but higher in the older age groups. Age-adjusted rates of blindness were 0.066% in men and 0.170% in women. Vision with current correction improved after refraction by gender and age. Direct age-standardized rates of functional near vision did not vary significantly by gender. Forty-six people had significant visual field loss in their better eye. The proportion of participants with constriction of the visual field to within 20 degrees of fixation was similar for men and women when controlled for age (odds ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.44 to 1.49) but increased significantly with age controlled for gender. Visual field abnormalities were detected in 548 right eyes (17%) and 533 left eyes (16%). CONCLUSIONS Although overall rates of blindness because of visual acuity loss were relatively low, nearly three times more people had visual impairment because of visual field loss than visual acuity loss. These results highlight the need to target blindness prevention programs to the aging population, with a special emphasis on women.

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/s0002-9394(14)70128-x

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 208

Metadata

Authors
TAYLOR, H. R., LIVINGSTON, P. M., STANISLAVSKY, Y. L., & MCCARTY, C. A.
Venue
American Journal of Ophthalmology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1997-03
Volume
123
Issue
3
Pages
328-337
ISSN
0002-9394 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2154437048
Cited by
208
References
1
FWCI
10.25
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: Visual Impairment in Australia: Distance Visual Acuity, Near Vision, and Visual Field Findings of the Melbourne Visual Impairment Project. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0002-9394(14)70128-x
The paper
TAYLOR, H. R., LIVINGSTON, P. M., STANISLAVSKY, Y. L., & MCCARTY, C. A. (1997). Visual Impairment in Australia: Distance Visual Acuity, Near Vision, and Visual Field Findings of the Melbourne Visual Impairment Project. American Journal of Ophthalmology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9394(14)70128-x

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.