Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 266

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 59 of the 59 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Updates on the Epidemiology of Age-Related Macular Degeneration

·2017·Asia-Pacific Journal of Ophthalmology

Abstract

This meta-analysis reports on current estimates of the prevalence of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) based on a review of recent meta-analyses and literature research. Within an age of 45-85 years, global prevalences of any AMD, early AMD, and late AMD were 8.7% [95% credible interval (CrI), 4.3‒17.4], 8.0% (95% CrI, 4.0‒15.5), and 0.4% (95% CrI, 0.2-0.8). Early AMD was more common in individuals of European ancestry (11.2%) than in Asians (6.8%), whereas prevalence of late AMD did not differ significantly. AMD of any type was less common in individuals of African ancestry. The number of individuals with AMD was estimated to be 196 million (95% CrI, 140‒261) in 2020 and 288 million (95% CrI, 205‒399) in 2040. The worldwide number of persons blind (presenting visual acuity < 3/60) or with moderate to severe vision impairment (MSVI; presenting visual acuity < 6/18 to 3/60 inclusive) due to macular disease in 2010 was 2.1 million [95% uncertainty interval (UI), 1.9‒2.7] individuals out of 32.4 million individuals blind and 6.0 million (95% UI, 5.2‒8.1) persons out of 191 million people with MSVI. Age-standardized prevalence of macular diseases as cause of blindness in adults aged 50+ years worldwide decreased from 0.2% (95% UI, 0.2‒0.2) in 1990 to 0.1% (95% UI, 0.1‒0.2) in 2010; as cause for MSVI, it remained mostly unchanged (1990: 0.4%; 95% UI, 0.3‒0.5; 2010: 0.4%; 95% UI, 0.4‒0.6), with no significant sex difference. In 2015, AMD was the fourth most common cause of blindness globally (in approximately 5.8% of blind individuals) and third most common cause for MSVI (3.9%). These data show the globally increasing importance of AMD.

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 · 10.22608/apo.2017251

Cites

59 of 59 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

Show all 59 references

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. 10.1111/j.1755-3768.1990.tb04786.x · doi:10.1111/j.1755-3768.1990.tb04786.x
  2. 10.1186/1471-2415-11-10 · doi:10.1186/1471-2415-11-10
  3. 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-304047 · doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-304047
  4. 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-303998 · doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-303998
  5. 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-304013 · doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-304013
  6. 10.1016/j.ajo.2007.03.047 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 266

Metadata

Venue
Asia-Pacific Journal of Ophthalmology
Published
2017
Volume
6
Issue
6
Pages
493-497
ISSN
2162-0989 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2969630964
Cited by
266
References
59
FWCI
12.15
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Updates on the Epidemiology of Age-Related Macular Degeneration. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.22608/apo.2017251
The paper
Updates on the Epidemiology of Age-Related Macular Degeneration. (2017). Asia-Pacific Journal of Ophthalmology. https://doi.org/10.22608/apo.2017251

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.