The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Global cost of correcting vision impairment from uncorrected refractive error
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the global cost of establishing and operating the educational and refractive care facilities required to provide care to all individuals who currently have vision impairment resulting from uncorrected refractive error (URE). METHODS: The global cost of correcting URE was estimated using data on the population, the prevalence of URE and the number of existing refractive care practitioners in individual countries, the cost of establishing and operating educational programmes for practitioners and the cost of establishing and operating refractive care facilities. The assumptions made ensured that costs were not underestimated and an upper limit to the costs was derived using the most expensive extreme for each assumption. FINDINGS: There were an estimated 158 million cases of distance vision impairment and 544 million cases of near vision impairment caused by URE worldwide in 2007. Approximately 47 000 additional full-time functional clinical refractionists and 18 000 ophthalmic dispensers would be required to provide refractive care services for these individuals. The global cost of educating the additional personnel and of establishing, maintaining and operating the refractive care facilities needed was estimated to be around 20 000 million United States dollars (US$) and the upper-limit cost was US$ 28 000 million. The estimated loss in global gross domestic product due to distance vision impairment caused by URE was US$ 202 000 million annually. CONCLUSION: The cost of establishing and operating the educational and refractive care facilities required to deal with vision impairment resulting from URE was a small proportion of the global loss in productivity associated with that vision impairment.
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
Cited by
James, S. L., Abate, D., Abate, K. H., Abay, S. M., Abbafati, C., Abbasi, N., Abbastabar, H., Abd-Allah, F., Abdela, J., Abdelalim, A., et al. (2018) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(18)32279-7 · Cited by 13,867
Self-citationVos, T., Abajobir, A. A., Abate, K. H., Abbafati, C., Abbas, K. M., Abd-Allah, F., Abdulkader, R. S., Abdulle, A. M., Abebo, T. A., Abera, S. F., et al. (2017) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32154-2 · Cited by 13,220
Self-citationDigital technology, tele-medicine and artificial intelligence in ophthalmology: A global perspective
Li, J.-P. O., Liu, H., Ting, D. S. J., Jeon, S., Chan, R. V. P., Kim, J. E., Sim, D. A., Thomas, P. B. M., Lin, H., Chen, Y., et al. (2021) · Progress in Retinal and Eye Research · doi:10.1016/j.preteyeres.2020.100900 · Cited by 626
Metadata
- Authors
- Fricke, T., Holden, B., Wilson, D., Schlenther, G., Naidoo, K., Resnikoff, S., & Frick, K.
- Venue
- Bulletin of the World Health Organization
- Publisher
- WHO Press
- Published
- 2012-10-01
- Volume
- 90
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 728-738
- ISSN
- 0042-9686 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2130714100
- Cited by
- 307
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 5.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
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: Global cost of correcting vision impairment from uncorrected refractive error. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2471/blt.12.104034
- The paper
- Fricke, T., Holden, B., Wilson, D., Schlenther, G., Naidoo, K., Resnikoff, S., & Frick, K. (2012). Global cost of correcting vision impairment from uncorrected refractive error. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. https://doi.org/10.2471/blt.12.104034
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.