Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26043421›Full record

ArticleDeutsches Arzteblatt international2015

The prevalence of amblyopia in Germany: data from the prospective, population-based Gutenberg Health Study.

Heike M Elflein, Susanne Fresenius, Julia Lamparter, Susanne Pitz, Norbert Pfeiffer, Harald Binder, Philipp Wild, Alireza Mirshahi

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Deutsches Arzteblatt international, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. [Amblyopia. Epidemiology, causes and risk factors].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2016
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Amblyopia and strabismus: Psychosocial characteristics - results from the Gutenberg Health Study (GHS).Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. The Changing Natural History of Anisometropia: A Scoping Review.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026
    Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. [Visual acuity in German preschool children-results of a cross-sectional study].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2021
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Heike M ElfleinDepartment of Ophthalmology at the University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Institute of Medical Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics (IMBEI) at the University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Department of Germany Preventive Cardiology and Preventive Medicine, Center for Thrombosis and Hemostasis, German Center for Cardiovascular Disease (DZHK) at the University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz.
Susanne Fresenius
Julia Lamparter
Susanne Pitz
Norbert Pfeiffer
Harald Binder
Philipp Wild
Alireza Mirshahi
Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAmblyopia is due to insufficient development of the visual system in early childhood and is a major source of lifelong impairment of visual acuity. Too little is known about the prevalence of amblyopia in Germany and the frequency of its various causes.

methodsThe Gutenberg Health Study of the University of Mainz Faculty of Medicine is an ongoing population-based, prospective, monocentric cohort study with 15 010 participants aged 35 to 74. All participants are examined for the presence of ocular, cardiovascular, neoplastic, metabolic, immunologic, and mental diseases. 3227 participants aged 35 to 44 underwent ophthalmological examination from 2007 to 2012. Amblyopia was defined as impaired visual acuity in the absence of any organic pathology capable of explaining the condition, and in the presence of a known risk factor for amblyopia.

resultsAmblyopia, when defined as a visual acuity less than or equal to 0.63, was present in 182 participants (5.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.9-6.5%), 120 of whom had a visual acuity less than or equal to 0.5 (3.7%, 95% CI 3.3-5.2%). A narrower definition of amblyopia requiring, in addition, an interocular difference in acuity of at least two lines yielded slightly lower prevalence figures: 5.0% (95% CI 4.2-5.8%) and 3.7% (95% CI 3.1-4.4%), respectively. The causes of amblyopia (visual acuity ≤ 0.63) were anisometropia (different refractive strengths of the two eyes) in 49% of participants, strabismus (a squint) in 23%, both of these factors in 17%, and visual deprivation in 2%. 3 patients (2%) had relative amblyopia due to a traumatic cataract sustained in early childhood. 7% of the participants with amblyopia had binocular amblyopia.

conclusionThis study yielded a prevalence figure of 5.6% for amblyopia in Germany-a higher figure than in other, comparable population-based studies, which have generally yielded figures of ca. 3% for visual acuity ≤ 0.63. The distribution of the causes of amblyopia is similar across studies.

Indexed as

Visual AcuityAdultAgedAge DistributionAmblyopiaCausalityComorbidityFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrevalenceProspective StudiesRisk FactorsSex Distribution

Identifiers

PMID26043421
PMCPMC4458790
OpenAlexW2404386096

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.