ArticleJAMA ophthalmology2020
Eye Care Among US Adults at High Risk for Vision Loss in the United States in 2002 and 2017.
Article in JAMA ophthalmology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.
- The relationship between sensory loss and health literacy in older adults: A systematic review.Geriatric nursing (New York, N.Y.)Pooled it
- LMOD+: A Comprehensive Multimodal Dataset and Benchmark for Developing and Evaluating Multimodal Large Language Models in Ophthalmology.ACM transactions on computing for healthcare · 2026Article
- Sensory Difficulty and Assistive Device Use Among Older U.S. Immigrants: Differences by Region of Origin.Research on aging · 2026Article
- Portable AI-powered scanning slit-light device for low-cost eye disease screening.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Interrogating a framework for diabetic retinopathy screening adherence: Qualitative insights from a severely affected and under-adherent population.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Access to Myopia Care in the United States-A Narrative Review.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Review
- Time spent on eye disease screening, optical care, and care navigation within a federally qualified health center.AJO international · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Visual Impairment from Uncorrected Refractive Error among Participants in a Novel Program to Improve Eye Care Access among Low-Income Adults in Michigan.Ophthalmology · 2024Article
- The influence of simulated visual impairment on distance stereopsis.Journal of vision · 2024Article
- Barriers to the uptake of eye care services: A cross-sectional survey from rural and urban communities.PloS one · 2024Article
- The Impact of Social Determinants of Health on Vision Loss From Cataracts and Cataract Surgery Utilization in the United States-A National Health Interview Survey Analysis.American journal of ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Predicting Internet Use and Digital Competence Among Older Adults Using Performance Tests of Visual, Physical, and Cognitive Functioning: Longitudinal Population-Based Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Perioperative Ischemic Optic Neuropathy after Cardiac Surgery: Development and Validation of a Preoperative Risk Prediction Model.Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia · 2022Article
- Perioperative Care of the Patient with Eye Pathologies Undergoing Nonocular Surgery.Anesthesiology · 2022Article
- Disparities in Vision Health and Eye Care.Ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Demographics, clinical interests, and ophthalmology skills confidence of medical student volunteers and non-volunteers in an extracurricular community vision screening service-learning program.BMC medical education · 2022Article
- Rabb-Venable Excellence in Ophthalmology Research Program: Contributions to Ophthalmology Workforce Diversity.Journal of academic ophthalmology (2017) · 2021Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Timely eye care can prevent unnecessary vision loss. Objectives: To estimate the number of US adults 18 years or older at high risk for vision loss in 2017 and to evaluate use of eye care services in 2017 compared with 2002. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study used data from the 2002 (n = 30 920) and 2017 (n = 32 886) National Health Interview Survey, an annual, cross-sectional, nationally representative sample of US noninstitutionalized civilians. Analysis excluded respondents younger than 18 years and those who were blind or unable to see. Covariates included age, sex, race/ethnicity, marital status, educational level, income-to-poverty ratio, health insurance status, diabetes diagnosis, vision or eye problems, and US region of residence. Main Outcomes and Measures: Three self-reported measures were visiting an eye care professional in the past 12 months, receiving a dilated eye examination in the past 12 months, and needing but being unable to afford eyeglasses in the past 12 months. Adults at high risk for vision loss included those who were 65 years or older, self-reported a diabetes diagnosis, or had vision or eye problems. Multivariable logistic regression models incorporating sampling weights were used to investigate associations between measures and covariates. Temporal comparisons between 2002 and 2017 were derived from estimates standardized to the US 2010 census population. Results: Among 30 920 individuals in 2002, 16.0% were 65 years or older, and 52.0% were female; among 32 886 individuals in 2017, 20.0% were 65 years or older, and 51.8% were female. In 2017, more than 93 million US adults (37.9%; 95% CI, 37.0%-38.7%) were at high risk for vision loss compared with almost 65 million (31.5%; 95% CI, 30.7%-32.3%) in 2002, a difference of 6.4 (95% CI, 5.2-7.6) percentage points. Use of eye care services improved (56.9% [95% CI, 55.7%-58.7%] reported visiting an eye care professional annually, and 59.8% [95% CI, 58.6%-61.0%] reported receiving a dilated eye examination), but 8.7% (95% CI, 8.0%-9.5%) said they could not afford eyeglasses (compared with 51.1% [95% CI, 49.9%-52.3%], 52.4% [95% CI, 51.2%-53.6%], and 8.3% [95% CI, 7.7%-8.9%], respectively, in 2002). In 2017, individuals with lower income compared with high income were more likely to report eyeglasses as unaffordable (13.6% [95% CI, 11.6%-15.9%] compared with 5.7% [95% CI, 4.9%-6.6%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Compared with data from 2002, more US adults were at high risk for vision loss in 2017. Although more adults used eye care, a larger proportion reported eyeglasses as unaffordable. Focusing resources on populations at high risk for vision loss, increasing awareness of the importance of eye care, and making eyeglasses more affordable could promote eye health, preserve vision, and reduce disparities.
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.