Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 522

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Global variations and time trends in the prevalence of primary open angle glaucoma (POAG): a systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Kapetanakis, Venediktos V, Chan, Michelle P Y, Foster, Paul J, Cook, Derek G, Owen, Christopher G, Rudnicka, Alicja R·2016·British Journal of Ophthalmology

Abstract

Systematic review of published population based surveys to examine the relationship between primary open angle glaucoma (POAG) prevalence and demographic factors. A literature search identified population-based studies with quantitative estimates of POAG prevalence (to October 2014). Multilevel binomial logistic regression of log-odds of POAG was used to examine the effect of age and gender among populations of different geographical and ethnic origins, adjusting for study design factors. Eighty-one studies were included (37 countries, 216 214 participants, 5266 POAG cases). Black populations showed highest POAG prevalence, with 5.2% (95% credible interval (CrI) 3.7%, 7.2%) at 60 years, rising to 12.2% (95% CrI 8.9% to 16.6%) at 80 years. Increase in POAG prevalence per decade of age was greatest among Hispanics (2.31, 95% CrI 2.12, 2.52) and White populations (1.99, 95% CrI 1.86, 2.12), and lowest in East and South Asians (1.48, 95% CrI 1.39, 1.57; 1.56, 95% CrI 1.31, 1.88, respectively). Men were more likely to have POAG than women (1.30, 95% CrI 1.22, 1.41). Older studies had lower POAG prevalence, which was related to the inclusion of intraocular pressure in the glaucoma definition. Studies with visual field data on all participants had a higher POAG prevalence than those with visual field data on a subset. Globally 57.5 million people (95% CI 46.4 to 73.1 million) were affected by POAG in 2015, rising to 65.5 million (95% CrI 52.8, 83.2 million) by 2020. This systematic review provides the most precise estimates of POAG prevalence and shows omitting routine visual field assessment in population surveys may have affected case ascertainment. Our findings will be useful to future studies and healthcare planning.

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/bjophthalmol-2015-307223

Cites

21 of 21 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 21 references

Cited by

See all 522

Metadata

Authors
Kapetanakis, V. V., Chan, M. P. Y., Foster, P. J., Cook, D. G., Owen, C. G., & Rudnicka, A. R.
Venue
British Journal of Ophthalmology
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2015-08-18
Volume
100
Issue
1
Pages
86-93
ISSN
  • 0007-1161 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-2079
OpenAlex
W2213541252
Cited by
522
References
21
FWCI
7.56
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: Global variations and time trends in the prevalence of primary open angle glaucoma (POAG): a systematic review and meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2015-307223
The paper
Kapetanakis, V. V., Chan, M. P. Y., Foster, P. J., Cook, D. G., Owen, C. G., & Rudnicka, A. R. (2016). Global variations and time trends in the prevalence of primary open angle glaucoma (POAG): a systematic review and meta-analysis. British Journal of Ophthalmology. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2015-307223

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.