Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 250

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Prevalence of serious eye disease and visual impairment in a north London population: population based, cross sectional study

Open access
Reidy, A, Minassian, D C, Vafidis, G, Joseph, J, Farrow, S, Wu, J, Desai, P, Connolly, A·1998·BMJ

Abstract

Objective: To estimate the magnitude of serious eye disorders and of visual impairment in a defined elderly population of a typical metropolitan area in England, and to assess the frequency they were in touch with, or known to, the eye care services. Design: Cross sectional survey using two stage cluster random sampling. Setting: General practices in north London. Subjects: Random sample of people aged 65 and older, drawn from a defined population of elderly people registered with 17 general practice groups. Main outcome measures: Proportions and population prevalence estimates were determined for visual acuity, assessed with the person's own spectacles (if any), classified into four categories: prevalence of cataract, age related macular degeneration, and refractive error causing visual impairment and of definite primary open angle glaucoma; and status of contact with eye services. Results: 1547 of 1840 (84%) eligible people were examined. The population prevalence of bilateral visual impairment (visual acuity <6/12) was 30%, of which 72% was potentially remediable. 92 of these 448 cases (21%) had visual acuity <6/60 (“blindness”) in one or both eyes. Prevalence of cataract causing visual impairment was 30%; 88% of these people were not in touch with the eye services. The prevalence of vision impairing, age related macular degeneration was 8% and of glaucoma (definite cases) was 3%. Three quarters of the people with definite glaucoma were not known to the eye services. Conclusions: Untreated visual impairment and eye disorders affect a substantial proportion of people aged 65 years and older. These findings should contribute to the setting up of future strategies for preservation of sight and eye health services in general. Key messages: Data have not been adequate to reliably estimate the extent of visual impairment and serious eye disease in metropolitan areas in Britain Data from north London shows that 30% of a sample of the population aged 65 or older are visually impaired in both eyes More than 72% of the bilateral visual impairment was potentially remediable by surgery or glasses, nearly one in three people had visually impairing cataract, and 88% of these people were not in touch with eye services Eye problems were more prevalent in people living in relatively underprivileged areas

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/bmj.316.7145.1643

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 250

Metadata

Authors
Reidy, A., Minassian, D. C., Vafidis, G., Joseph, J., Farrow, S., Wu, J., Desai, P., & Connolly, A.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1998-05-30
Volume
316
Issue
7145
Pages
1643-1646
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2090925471
Cited by
250
References
0
FWCI
8.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Prevalence of serious eye disease and visual impairment in a north London population: population based, cross sectional study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.316.7145.1643
The paper
Reidy, A., Minassian, D. C., Vafidis, G., Joseph, J., Farrow, S., Wu, J., Desai, P., & Connolly, A. (1998). Prevalence of serious eye disease and visual impairment in a north London population: population based, cross sectional study. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.316.7145.1643

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.