The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Revision of visual impairment definitions in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases
Open accessAbstract
Background: The existing definitions of visual impairment in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases are based on recommendations made over 30 years ago. New data and knowledge related to visual impairment that have accumulated over this period suggest that these definitions need to be revised. Discussion: Three major issues need to be addressed in the revision of these definitions. First, the existing definitions are based on best-corrected visual acuity, which exclude uncorrected refractive error as a cause of visual impairment, leading to substantial underestimation of the total visual impairment burden by about 38%. Second, the cut-off level of visual impairment to define blindness in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases is visual acuity less than 3/60 in the better eye, but with increasing human development the visual acuity requirements are also increasing, suggesting that a level less than 6/60 be used to define blindness. Third, the International Statistical Classification of Diseases uses the term 'low vision' for visual impairment level less than blindness, which causes confusion with the common use of this term for uncorrectable vision requiring aids or rehabilitation, suggesting that alternative terms such as moderate and mild visual impairment would be more appropriate for visual impairment less severe than blindness. We propose a revision of the definitions of visual impairment in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases that addresses these three issues. According to these revised definitions, the number of blind persons in the world defined as presenting visual acuity less than 6/60 in the better eye would be about 57 million as compared with the World Health Organization estimate of 37 million using the existing International Statistical Classification of Diseases definition of best-corrected visual acuity less than 3/60 in the better eye, and the number of persons in the world with moderate visual impairment defined as presenting visual acuity less than 6/18 to 6/60 in the better eye would be about 202 million as compared with the World Health Organization estimate of 124 million persons with low vision defined as best-corrected visual acuity less than 6/18 to 3/60 in the better eye. Conclusion: Our suggested revision of the visual impairment definitions in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases takes into account advances in the understanding of visual impairment. This revised classification seems more appropriate for estimating and tracking visual impairment in the countries and regions of the world than the existing classification in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases.
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
Global data on visual impairment in the year 2002.
(2004) · Europe PMC (PubMed Central) · Cited by 4,157
Causes and Prevalence of Visual Impairment Among Adults in the UnitedStates
(2004) · Archives of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1001/archopht.122.4.477 · Cited by 2,616
The Wealth and Poverty of Nations
Rosen, G. (1999) · Journal of Economic Issues · doi:10.1080/00213624.1999.11506142 · Cited by 1,237
The Wealth and Poverty of Nations
Clerc, D., & Landes, D. S. (2001) · Cited by 1,048
Duane's Clinical Ophthalmology
Duane, T. D., & Tasman, W. S. (1993) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 1,014
Pascolini, D., Mariotti, S. P., Pokharel, G. P., Pararajasegaram, R., Etya’ale, D., Négrel, A.-D., & Resnikoff, S. (2004) · Ophthalmic Epidemiology · doi:10.1076/opep.11.2.67.28158 · Cited by 527
Klingebiel, S., & Hildebrand, M. (2010) · A Concise Encyclopedia of the United Nations · doi:10.1163/ej.9789004180048.i-962.200 · Cited by 482
Taylor, H. R., Keeffe, J. E., Vu, H. T. V., Wang, J. J., Rochtchina, E., Mitchell, P., & Pezzullo, M. L. (2005) · Medical Journal of Australia · doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.2005.tb06815.x · Cited by 219
Cause-specific prevalence of bilateral visual impairment in Victoria, Australia
VanNewkirk, M. R., Weih, L., McCarty, C. A., & Taylor, H. R. (2001) · Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/s0161-6420(01)00554-1 · Cited by 210
TAYLOR, H. R., LIVINGSTON, P. M., STANISLAVSKY, Y. L., & MCCARTY, C. A. (1997) · American Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/s0002-9394(14)70128-x · Cited by 208
Cited by
Prevalence of Refractive Error in the United States, 1999-2004
Vitale, S. (2008) · Archives of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1001/archopht.126.8.1111 · Cited by 512
Potential lost productivity resulting from the global burden of uncorrected refractive error
Smith, T. (2009) · Bulletin of the World Health Organization · doi:10.2471/blt.08.055673 · Cited by 347
Huang, H. (2018) · Universal Access in the Information Society · doi:10.1007/s10209-017-0550-z · Cited by 23
Metadata
- Authors
- Dandona, L., & Dandona, R.
- Venue
- BMC Medicine
- Published
- 2006-03-16
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 7-7
- ISSN
- 1741-7015 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1549672311
- Cited by
- 269
- References
- 16
- FWCI
- 3.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Revision of visual impairment definitions in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1741-7015-4-7
- The paper
- Dandona, L., & Dandona, R. (2006). Revision of visual impairment definitions in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases. BMC Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-4-7
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.