The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Are we blind to injuries in the visually impaired? A review of the literature
Open accessAbstract
Objectives: To review the literature on the risks and types of injuries associated with visual impairment, and to identify pertinent areas for future research. Methods: A search of bibliographic databases was conducted in April 2000 for studies published since 1980 and selected studies that met two or more of the following criteria: formal ophthalmic assessment was used; adjustment for confounding variables; large sample size including numbers of visually impaired; and clear definitions and outcomes. Results: Thirty one studies were selected. The majority of these studies (20) assessed falls (including eight on hip fracture and four on multiple falls), eight studies reported traffic related injuries, and three studies assessed occupational injury. The evidence on falls, which relate predominantly to older people, suggests that those with reduced visual acuity are 1.7 times more likely to have a fall and 1.9 times more likely to have multiple falls compared with fully sighted populations. The odds of a hip fracture are between 1.3 and 1.9 times greater for those with reduced visual acuity. Studies of less severe injuries and other causes of injury were either poorly designed, underpowered, or did not exist. Conclusions: There are substantial gaps in research on both injuries to which people with visual impairment are especially susceptible and in evaluating interventions to reduce these injuries. It is recommended that in future studies the minimum data captured includes: formal ophthalmic assessment of visual fields and visual acuity, outcome measurement, control for confounders, and the costs of health care resource use and any interventions.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Moher, D., Cook, D. J., Eastwood, S., Olkin, I., Rennie, D., & Stroup, D. F. (1999) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(99)04149-5 · Cited by 4,826
Risk Factors for Hip Fracture in White Women
Cummings, S. R., Nevitt, M. C., Browner, W. S., Stone, K., Fox, K. M., Ensrud, K. E., Cauley, J., Black, D., & Vogt, T. M. (1995) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199503233321202 · Cited by 3,595
Guideline for the Prevention of Falls in Older Persons
Society, A. G., Society, G., Of, A. A., & On Falls Prevention, O. S. P. (2001) · Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · doi:10.1046/j.1532-5415.2001.49115.x · Cited by 2,242
Cited by
Risk of Falls and Motor Vehicle Collisions in Glaucoma
Haymes, S. A., LeBlanc, R. P., Nicolela, M. T., Chiasson, L. A., & Chauhan, B. C. (2007) · Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science · doi:10.1167/iovs.06-0886 · Cited by 311
RGB-D camera based wearable navigation system for the visually impaired
Lee, Y. H., & Medioni, G. (2016) · Computer Vision and Image Understanding · doi:10.1016/j.cviu.2016.03.019 · Cited by 143
Kessel, L., Kjellberg, J., Ibsen, R., Rasmussen, A., Nissen, K. R., & la Cour, M. (2022) · BMC Ophthalmology · doi:10.1186/s12886-022-02708-0 · Cited by 8
Metadata
- Authors
- Legood, R., Scuffham, P., & Cryer, C.
- Venue
- Injury Prevention
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2002-06
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 155-160
- ISSN
- 1353-8047 (ISSN-L)
- 1475-5785
- OpenAlex
- W2017742830
- Cited by
- 209
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 15.25
- 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
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.