CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,845Retinal Diseases and TreatmentsRetinal Imaging and AnalysisOcular Diseases and Behçet’s Syndrome

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Prevalence of Age-related Maculopathy

Klein, Ronald, Klein, Barbara E.K., Linton, Kathryn L.P.·1992·Ophthalmology
DOI 10.1016/s0161-6420(92)31871-8
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose The relationships of retinal drusen, retinal pigmentary abnormalities, and macular degeneration to age and sex were studied in 4926 people between the ages of 43 and 86 years who participated in the Beaver Dam Eye Study.Methods The presence and severity of various characteristics of drusen and other lesions typical of age-related maculopathy were determined by grading stereoscopic color fundus photographs using the Wisconsin Age-Related Maculopathy Grading System.Results One or more drusen were present in the macular area of at least 1 eye in 95.5% of the population. People 75 years of age or older had significantly higher frequencies (P less than 0.01) of the following characteristics than people 43 to 54 years of age: larger sized drusen (greater than or equal to 125 microns, 24.0% versus 1.9%), soft indistinct drusen (23.0% versus 2.1%), retinal pigment abnormalities (26.6% versus 7.3%), exudative macular degeneration (5.2% versus 0.1%), and geographic atrophy (2.0% versus 0%).Conclusion These data indicate signs of age-related maculopathy are common in people 75 years of age or older and may pose a substantial public health problem.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0161-6420(92)31871-8

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 28 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Leibowitz, 1980, The Framingham Eye Study Monograph, Surv Ophthalmol, 24, 335
  2. 1981, Report 7, A modification of the Airlie House classification of diabetic retinopathy, Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 21, 210
  3. 1990, Vol. 2, 267

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Klein, R., Klein, B. E. K., & Linton, K. L. P.
Affiliations
University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
Venue
Ophthalmology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1992-06
Volume
99
Issue
6
Pages
933-943
ISSN
0161-6420 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/s0161-6420(92)31871-8
OpenAlex
W180812339
Cited by
1,845
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 56 · 2020: 46 · 2019: 43 · 2018: 41 · 2017: 62 · 2016: 42 · 2015: 65 · 2014: 56 · 2013: 83 · 2012: 77
FWCI
27.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Ophthalmology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Eye Institute (EY O6594, U10EY006594)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Retinal Diseases and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Retinal Imaging and Analysis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Ocular Diseases and Behçet’s Syndrome
Keywords
age-related maculopathy, retinal drusen, neovascular age-related macular degeneration, geographic atrophy, macular degeneration, prevalence, age differences, sex differences, Beaver Dam Eye Study
MeSH terms
Adult, Age Factors, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Humans, Macula Lutea, Macular Degeneration, Male, Middle Aged, Retinitis Pigmentosa, Risk Factors, Wisconsin, Retinal Drusen, 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