Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 2,365

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The definition and classification of glaucoma in prevalence surveys

Open access
Foster, P. J·2002·British Journal of Ophthalmology

Abstract

This review describes a scheme for diagnosis of glaucoma in population based prevalence surveys. Cases are diagnosed on the grounds of both structural and functional evidence of glaucomatous optic neuropathy. The scheme also makes provision for diagnosing glaucoma in eyes with severe visual loss where formal field testing is impractical, and for blind eyes in which the optic disc cannot be seen because of media opacities.

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 · 10.1136/bjo.86.2.238

Cites

15 of 15 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 15 references

Cited by

See all 2,365

Metadata

Authors
Foster, P. J.
Venue
British Journal of Ophthalmology
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2002-02-01
Volume
86
Issue
2
Pages
238-242
ISSN
0007-1161 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2169113983
Cited by
2,365
References
15
FWCI
33.16
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 definition and classification of glaucoma in prevalence surveys. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bjo.86.2.238
The paper
Foster, P. J. (2002). The definition and classification of glaucoma in prevalence surveys. British Journal of Ophthalmology. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.86.2.238

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.