ArticleJAMA ophthalmology2022
Assessing Eye Health and Eye Care Needs Among North American Native Individuals.
Article in JAMA ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Indigenous Eye Health in the Americas: The Burden of Vision Impairment and Ocular Diseases.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Pooled it
- Vision Screening and Vision Loss-Related Conditions Among American Indian or Alaska Native Children.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Burden of Pseudoexfoliation and Pigmentary Glaucoma among American Indian or Alaska Native Patients.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Economic evaluations of eye care services for Indigenous populations in high-income countries: a scoping review.International journal for equity in health · 2024Article
- Real-World Analysis of the Efficacy of Bimatoprost Sustained-Release Glaucoma Implant Where American Indians Comprise the Largest Minority Population.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Article
- Prevalence and Risk Factors of Self-reported Vision Impairment among Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders in the United States.Hawai'i journal of health & social welfare · 2023Article
- Seeing Red: Associations between Historical Redlining and Present-Day Visual Impairment and Blindness.Ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Inequities and Research Gaps in Ophthalmology: A Scoping Review.JAMA ophthalmology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
importanceThere are few population-level studies on ophthalmic conditions and services among North American Native individuals.
objectiveTo evaluate whether disparities in ophthalmic conditions and services exist between North American Native individuals and non-Hispanic White individuals in the US. DESIGN, SETTING, AND
participantsThis cross-sectional study used 100% Medicare fee-for-service (MFFS) enrollment data from the Vision and Eye Health Surveillance System (VEHSS) to examine ophthalmic conditions and service use in North American Native individuals and non-Hispanic White individuals in the US. In this study North American Native individuals included those who identified as American Indian, Native Alaskan, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander. Data were analyzed from August 2020 to April 2021.
interventionsClaims and sociodemographic characteristics were extracted and means computed for categories of ophthalmic conditions and select ophthalmic services. Ophthalmic conditions and services were defined in the VEHSS using International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) codes. Logistic regression was used to model differences between age-adjusted mean ophthalmic condition and service claim rates among North American Native individuals and non-Hispanic White individuals for each age cohort. Matching ophthalmic condition claim rates and ophthalmic service claim rates was performed to examine disparities by racial group. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Mean age-adjusted claim rates for ophthalmic conditions and services among North American Native individuals vs non-Hispanic White individuals per 100 persons.
resultsClaims were identified for 177 100 Native American Native individuals and 24 438 000 non-Hispanic White individuals. In 16 of 17 ophthalmic condition categories and 6 of 9 service categories, North American Native individuals had significantly different claim rates from non-Hispanic White individuals. There were higher ophthalmic condition claim rates but lower service claim rates for North American Native individuals (vs non-Hispanic White individuals) for refractive errors (ophthalmic condition, 17.2 vs 11.1; service, 48.3 vs 49.6, respectively; P < .001); blindness and low vision (ophthalmic condition, 1.48 vs 0.75: service, 19.2 vs 20.1, respectively; P < .001); injury, burns, and surgical complications (ophthalmic condition, 1.8 vs 1.7; service, 19.2 vs 20.1, respectively; P < .001); and orbital and external disease (ophthalmic condition, 15.7 vs 13.3; service, 48.3 vs 49.6, respectively; P < .001). For diabetic eye diseases, North American Native individuals had higher ophthalmic condition claim rates (5.22 vs 2.20) but no difference in service claim rates (14.4 vs 14.8; P = .26) compared with non-Hispanic White individuals. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cross-sectional study, North American Native individuals had higher prevalence of ophthalmic conditions but no corresponding increase in services (treatment for most ophthalmic conditions) compared with non-Hispanic White individuals. These results suggest worse eye health and higher unmet eyecare needs for North American Native individuals with MFFS coverage compared with non-Hispanic White individuals with MFFS coverage.
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.