The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The British Infantile and Childhood Glaucoma (BIG) Eye Study
Abstract
purpose. Pediatric glaucoma is a rare, potentially blinding condition, yet, in the United Kingdom, there is a paucity of contemporary epidemiologic and clinical data regarding this condition. The British Infantile and Childhood Glaucoma (BIG) Eye Study is the first national population-based study conducted to examine the incidence, detection patterns, current management, and intraocular pressure (IOP) control at 1 year in children with newly diagnosed glaucoma in the United Kingdom. methods. A prospective study was conducted wherein children in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland aged ≤16 years with newly diagnosed primary or secondary glaucoma, were identified by consultant ophthalmologists through active surveillance from December 2001 until November 2002. Eligible cases were re-evaluated 12 months after notification. results. Of the 99 eligible children with newly diagnosed glaucoma, 47 had primary and 52 secondary glaucoma. The annual incidence of diagnosis of primary congenital glaucoma (PCG) in Great Britain was 5.41 in 100,000 (1/18,500) live births and in the Republic of Ireland, 3.31 in 100,000 (1/30,200). The incidence of PCG in children of Pakistani origin was almost nine times that of Caucasians. IOP control of ≤21 mm Hg was achieved in 94% with medications (60% without medications) in cases of PCG and in 86% with medications (28% without medications) in cases of secondary glaucoma. conclusions. The British annual incidence of PCG diagnosis is comparable to that reported for other similar populations. Ethnic minorities from South Asia are at significantly increased risk of PCG. Successful IOP control in PCG after surgery in Britain is comparable to that in the published literature.
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
The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics
(1976) · American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy · doi:10.1093/ajhp/33.4.373a · Cited by 8,209
Nelson, L. B., Spaeth, G. L., Nowinski, T. S., Margo, C. E., & Jackson, L. (1984) · Survey of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/0039-6257(84)90184-x · Cited by 429
(1962) · Medical Journal of Australia · doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.1962.tb25859.x · Cited by 314
Results, with Trabeculotomy and Study of Reversible Cupping
Quigley, H. A. (1982) · Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/s0161-6420(82)34803-4 · Cited by 231
A Review of Anterior Segment Dysgeneses
Idrees, F., Vaideanu, D., Fraser, S. G., Sowden, J. C., & Khaw, P. T. (2006) · Survey of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.survophthal.2006.02.006 · Cited by 198
Self-citationThe Epidemiology of Eye Disease
Johnson, G. J., Minassian, D. C., Weale, R. A., & West, S. K. (2012) · IMPERIAL COLLEGE PRESS eBooks · doi:10.1142/p742 · Cited by 197
(2012) · doi:10.1093/med/9780195326147.001.0001 · Cited by 139
Cited by
Sun, H., Temeck, J. W., Chambers, W., Perkins, G., Bonnel, R., & Murphy, D. (2018) · Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science · doi:10.1177/2168479017725558 · Cited by 70
Metadata
- Authors
- Papadopoulos, M., Cable, N., Rahi, J., & Khaw, P. T.
- Venue
- Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science
- Published
- 2007-09-01
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 4100
- ISSN
- 0146-0404 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-5783
- OpenAlex
- W2093712199
- Cited by
- 309
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 4.49
- 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.