The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Global epidemiology of retinal vein occlusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence, incidence, and risk factors
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Retinal vein occlusion (RVO) is the second most common retinal vascular disorder that affected 16.4 million people worldwide in 2008. The last decade has seen new epidemiological data on RVO, enabling us to provide a contemporary estimation of RVO epidemiology. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Medline, Embase, GLOBAL HEALTH, World Health Organization Global Health Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure for studies that reported prevalence or incidence of RVO in the general population. The age- and sex-specific prevalence of RVO was estimated by a multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression, the incidence of RVO and potential risk factors for RVO were respectively pooled by a random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: The prevalence of any RVO, branch RVO (BRVO) and central RVO (CRVO) all increased with advanced age, but didn't differ significantly between sexes. In 2015, the global prevalence of any RVO, BRVO and CRVO in people aged 30-89 years was 0.77% (95% confidence interval CI = 0.55-1.08), 0.64% (95% CI = 0.47-0.87) and 0.13% (95% CI = 0.08-0.21), equivalent to an overall of 28.06 million, 23.38 million and 4.67 million affected people. For any RVO, the pooled five-year cumulative incidence was 0.86% (95% CI = 0.70-1.07) and the pooled ten-year cumulative incidence was 1.63% (95% CI = 1.38-1.92). Hypertension was the strongest risk factor for any RVO, with a meta- odds ratio (OR) of 2.82 (95% CI = 2.12-3.75). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides an updated summary of RVO epidemiology in the general population. More epidemiological studies worldwide are still needed to better understand the global disease burden of RVO.
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
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & the PRISMA Group* (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 · Cited by 37,554
Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis
Higgins, J. P. T., & Thompson, S. G. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1186 · Cited by 36,763
von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Egger, M., Pocock, S. J., Gøtzsche, P. C., Vandenbroucke, J. P., & Initiative, F. T. S. (2007) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296 · Cited by 23,020
Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias
Begg, C. B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2533446 · Cited by 16,955
World Population Prospects The 2006 Revision
Zlotnik, H. (2007) · United Nations eBooks · Cited by 7,898
Fowkes, F. G. R., Rudan, D., Rudan, I., Aboyans, V., Denenberg, J. O., McDermott, M. M., Norman, P. E., Sampson, U. K., Williams, L. J., Mensah, G. A., et al. (2013) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(13)61249-0 · Cited by 3,508
Self-citationComparison of two methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis.
Peters, J. L. (2006) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.295.6.676 · Cited by 2,278
Cited by
Cen, L.-P., Ji, J., Lin, J.-W., Ju, S.-T., Lin, H.-J., Li, T.-P., Wang, Y., Yang, J.-F., Liu, Y.-F., Tan, S., et al. (2021) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-021-25138-w · Cited by 346
Gene-based therapeutics for acquired retinal disease: opportunities and progress
Tan, T.-E., Fenner, B. J., Barathi, V. A., Tun, S. B. B., Wey, Y. S., Tsai, A. S. H., Su, X., Lee, S. Y., Cheung, C. M. G., Wong, T. Y., et al. (2021) · Frontiers in Genetics · doi:10.3389/fgene.2021.795010 · Cited by 26
Fu, D. J., Mishra, A. V., Quek, C., Balaskas, K., Pontikos, N., Sim, D., Sivaprasad, S., & Faes, L. (2025) · Eye · doi:10.1038/s41433-024-03529-9 · Cited by 14
Metadata
- Authors
- Song, P., Xu, Y., Zha, M., Zhang, Y., & Rudan, I.
- Venue
- Journal of Global Health
- Published
- 2019-05-12
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 010427-010427
- ISSN
- 2047-2978 (ISSN-L)
- 2047-2986
- OpenAlex
- W2975636469
- Cited by
- 391
- References
- 33
- FWCI
- 7.94
- 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: Global epidemiology of retinal vein occlusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence, incidence, and risk factors. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7189/jogh.09.010427
- The paper
- Song, P., Xu, Y., Zha, M., Zhang, Y., & Rudan, I. (2019). Global epidemiology of retinal vein occlusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence, incidence, and risk factors. Journal of Global Health. https://doi.org/10.7189/jogh.09.010427
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.