ArticleJournal of ophthalmic & vision research
Prevalence and Burden of Refractive Errors at National and Sub-national Levels in Iran.
Article in Journal of ophthalmic & vision research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trends in prevalence and disability-adjusted life years for refractive disorders in China and globally from 1990 to 2021: an analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Prevalence and associated factors of refractive error among adults in South Ethiopia, a community-based cross-sectional study.PloS one · 2024Article
- Prevalence and secular trends of four causes of blindness and visual impairment in Iran (1990-2019): a comparative study based on the Global Burden of Disease project's data.International ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Covid-19 pandemic and risk of Myopia.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo estimate the prevalence, burden of refractive errors and their associated trend from 1990 to 2018 and geographic inequalities in Iran.
methodsData regarding the epidemiology of refractive errors was extracted from three different sources: systematic review of published literature, data from visual school screening programs, and data from Iran's national health survey (NHS). The pool of all available data on refractive errors as well as demographic, location, and socioeconomic status covariates were fitted in spatio-temporal and Gaussian process regression models to predict the prevalence of refractive errors from the years 1990 to 2018 in 31 provinces grouped by age and sex in order to calculate years lived with disability (YLDs).
resultsIn 2018, the age-adjusted prevalence of refractive errors was 16.32% (95% uncertainty interval [UI]: 12.44-21.48%) in both sexes, 17.98% (95% UI: 13.74-23.61%) in women, and 14.66% (95% UI: 11.14-19.36%) in men. The prevalence of refractive errors reveals that it increases with age. Refractive errors contributed to 441.41 and 348.38 YLDs in men and women, respectively. The age-standardized prevalence growth was 31.30% in females and 24.32% in males from the years 1990 to 2018. Significant geographical heterogeneity was observed. The age-standardized YLDs rates of refractive errors represent an increasing trend of 28.9% increase from 1990 to 2018.
conclusionOver 28 years, the prevalence of refractive errors increased significantly. Women tend to have higher rates of prevalence. The prevalence increased in older ages. Border provinces had the lowest prevalence. Age-standardized YLDs rates of refractive errors increased by about 30%.
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.