Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 328

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Diabetes, Intraocular Pressure, and Primary Open-angle Glaucoma in the Baltimore Eye Survey

Open access
Tielsch, James M., Katz, Joanne, Quigley, Harry A., Javitt, Jonathan C., Sommer, Alfred·1995·Ophthalmology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The association of diabetes with primary-open angle glaucoma (POAG) has been controversial and often confused by varying definitions of both diabetes and POAG. The purpose of this study is to evaluate this association in a population-based sample of subjects from the Baltimore Eye Survey. METHODS: A stratified sample of residents in 16 cluster areas of east Baltimore was recruited for a detailed ophthalmologic screening examination. A total of 5308 black subjects and white subjects participated. Of these participants, 161 received a diagnosis of POAG. During a detailed interview with each subject, diabetes was defined based on a reported history of diabetes. Persons with diabetes were classified as "insulin-users" and "noninsulin-users" based on their current method of treatment. RESULTS: Diabetes was highly prevalent in this population, with 10.6% of white subjects and 17.2% of black subjects reporting a positive history. Diabetes was associated with higher intraocular pressure, but differences were not large (means, 17.4, 18.0, and 17.8 mmHg) among subjects without diabetes, those with diabetes who were not using insulin, and those with diabetes who were using insulin, respectively. Diabetes was not associated with POAG (age-race-adjusted odds ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.85, 1.25). This was true for both types of diabetes. Persons whose POAG had been diagnosed before the examination showed a positive association with diabetes (odds ratio, 1.7, 95% confidence interval, 1.03, 2.86), indicating that selection bias could explain the positive results of previous clinic-based investigations. CONCLUSION: There is no evidence from this population-based investigation that supports an association between diabetes and POAG.

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/s0161-6420(95)31055-x

Cites

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

Cited by

See all 328

Metadata

Authors
Tielsch, J. M., Katz, J., Quigley, H. A., Javitt, J. C., & Sommer, A.
Venue
Ophthalmology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1995-01
Volume
102
Issue
1
Pages
48-53
ISSN
0161-6420 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1994279963
Cited by
328
References
0
FWCI
8.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Diabetes, Intraocular Pressure, and Primary Open-angle Glaucoma in the Baltimore Eye Survey. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0161-6420(95)31055-x
The paper
Tielsch, J. M., Katz, J., Quigley, H. A., Javitt, J. C., & Sommer, A. (1995). Diabetes, Intraocular Pressure, and Primary Open-angle Glaucoma in the Baltimore Eye Survey. Ophthalmology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0161-6420(95)31055-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.