Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30246151›Full record

ReviewBMJ open ophthalmology2018

Sex, gender and blindness: a new framework for equity.

Lesley Doyal, Raja G Das-Bhaumik

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ open ophthalmology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Are there sex-based disparities in cataract surgery?International journal of ophthalmology · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Are Your Eyes "on the Road"? Findings from the 2019 National Study on Vision and Driving Safety in Spain.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
  15. Delayed attendance at routine eye examinations is associated with increased probability of general practitioner referral: a record linkage study in Northern Ireland.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2020
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  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

2 authors.

Lesley DoyalUniversity of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Raja G Das-BhaumikMoorfields Eye Hospital, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Four-fifths of all blind or vision impaired people live in middle-income and low-income countries with the African region and parts of Asia and the Middle East bearing the heaviest burden. At the same time, we know that around two thirds of all blind people in the world are female. Hence, the poorest (and usually the oldest) women are most likely to have their lives limited by visual impairment. While recent strategies have focussed on international variations in eye health, very few have paid attention to the gender differences that are an inextricable element in these inequalities. This review will explore possible explanations for the advantage of men in the exercise of one of the most basic of human senses. It will show that this cannot be understood through the use of a biomedical approach alone. Broader social perspectives will also be needed in order to create an appropriate knowledge base for tackling global inequalities in blindness.

Indexed as

epidemiologypublic healthvision

Identifiers

PMID30246151
PMCPMC6146307

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.