Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 502

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Variations in Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma Prevalence by Age, Gender, and Race: A Bayesian Meta-Analysis

Rudnicka, Alicja R., Mt-Isa, Shahrul, Owen, Christopher G., Cook, Derek G., Ashby, Deborah·2006·Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science
DOI 10.1167/iovs.06-0299
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

PURPOSE: To quantify the variation in primary open-angle glaucoma (OAG) prevalence with age, gender, race, year of publication, and survey methodology. METHODS: Medline, EMBASE, and PubMed were searched for studies of OAG prevalence. Studies with defined population samplings were sought. Forty-six published observational studies of OAG prevalence (103,567 participants with 2509 cases of OAG) were identified for inclusion in the systematic review and meta-analysis. Data on the number of people and the number of cases of OAG by age, race, and gender were sought for each study. Additional information was obtained regarding whether the definition of glaucoma relied on raised intraocular pressure (IOP) and whether visual field examination was performed routinely on all individuals. Bayesian meta-analysis was used to model the associations between the log odds of OAG and age, race, gender, year of publication, method of visual field testing, and effect of reliance on IOP in the definition of OAG. RESULTS: Black populations had the highest OAG prevalence at all ages, but the proportional increase in prevalence of OAG with age was highest in white populations. The odds ratio per decade increase in age was 2.05 in white populations (95% credible interval, 1.91 to 2.18), 1.61 (95% credible interval, 1.53 to 1.70) in black populations, and 1.57 (95% credible interval, 1.46 to 1.68) in Asian populations. The average estimated prevalence in those older than 70 years of age was 6% in white populations, 16% in black populations, and 3% in Asian populations. After adjusting for age, race, year of publication, and survey methods, men were 1.37 (95% credible interval, 1.22 to 1.53) times more likely than women to have OAG. The prevalence of OAG was one third lower in studies in which routine visual fields were not assessed and that used an IOP criterion in the definition of glaucoma; this effect was reduced to the null after adjustment for age, racial group, and year of publication. CONCLUSIONS: Although black populations had the highest prevalence of OAG at all ages, white populations showed the steepest increase in OAG prevalence with age. Men were more likely than women to have OAG.

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 · 10.1167/iovs.06-0299

Cites

41 of 41 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

Cited by

See all 502

Metadata

Authors
Rudnicka, A. R., Mt-Isa, S., Owen, C. G., Cook, D. G., & Ashby, D.
Venue
Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science
Publisher
Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO)
Published
2006-10-01
Volume
47
Issue
10
Pages
4254
ISSN
  • 0146-0404 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-5783
DOI
10.1167/iovs.06-0299
OpenAlex
W2003959496
Cited by
502
References
41
FWCI
10.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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.