ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care
Refractive errors among patients attending the ophthalmology department of a medical college in North-East India.
Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Epidemiology and trends in the uptake of refractive error services in Harare, Zimbabwe: a hospital-based retrospective study.Malawi medical journal : the journal of Medical Association of Malawi · 2023Article
- Epidemiology of eye diseases: outcomes from a free provincial eye clinic in Papua New Guinea.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- The Magnitude of Refractive Error and Its Associated Factors Among Patients Visiting Ophthalmology Clinics in Southern Ethiopia, 2022.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2023Article
- Prediction of manifest refraction using machine learning ensemble models on wavefront aberrometry data.Journal of optometry · 2022Article
- Myopia in India.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2022Review
- Prevalence and Distribution of Refractive Errors among Ophthalmic Patients in Madang Province, Papua New Guinea.Journal of current ophthalmologyArticle
- Gender and age distribution of refractive errors in an optometric clinical population.Journal of optometryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo determine the magnitude and pattern of refractive errors among patients attending the ophthalmology department of a new medical college in North-East India. MATERIALS AND
methodsA prospective study of the new patients (age ≥5 years), who were phakic and whose unaided visual acuities were worse than 20/20 but improved with pinhole, was done. Complete ophthalmic examination and refraction with appropriate cycloplegia for age were done for the 4582 eligible patients. Spherical equivalents (SE) of refractive errors of the right eyes were used for analysis.
resultsOf the 4582 eligible patients, 2546 patients had refractive errors (55.56%). The proportion of emmetropia (SE - 0.50-+0.50 diopter sphere [DS]), myopia (SE <-0.50 DS), high myopia (SE >-5.0 DS), and hypermetropia (>+0.50 DS for adults and >+2.0 DS for children) were 53.1%, 27.4%, 2.6%, and 16.9%, respectively. The proportion of hyperopia increased till 59 years and then decreased with age (
conclusionsThis study has provided the magnitude and pattern of refractive errors in the study population. It will serve as the initial step for conducting community-based studies on the prevalence of refractive errors in this part of the country since such data are lacking from this region. Moreover, this study will help the primary care physicians to have an overview of the magnitude and pattern of refractive errors presenting to a health-care center as refractive error is an established and significant public health problem worldwide.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.