Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35620376›Full record

ReviewJournal of current ophthalmology

Global Prevalence and Causes of Visual Impairment and Blindness in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Abbasali Yekta, Elham Hooshmand, Mohammad Saatchi, Hadi Ostadimoghaddam, Amir Asharlous, Azadeh Taheri, Mehdi Khabazkhoob

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of current ophthalmology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
12.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 83 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Vision impairment in boys recruited to the iREAD study.Israel journal of health policy research · 2025
    Article
  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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Abbasali YektaDepartment of Optometry, School of Paramedical Sciences, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.
Elham HooshmandIranian Research Center on Aging, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Mohammad SaatchiHealth in Emergency and Disaster Research Center, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Hadi OstadimoghaddamRefractive Errors Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.
Amir AsharlousRehabilitation Research Center, Department of Optometry, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Azadeh TaheriNoor Research Center for Ophthalmic Epidemiology, Noor Eye Hospital, Tehran, Iran.
Mehdi KhabazkhoobDepartment of Basic Sciences, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Mashhad University of Medical Sciences · IRUniversity of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences · IRIran University of Medical Sciences · IRNoor Eye Hospital · IRShahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To determine the global prevalence and common causes of visual impairment (VI) and blindness in children. Methods: In this meta-analysis, a structured search strategy was applied to search electronic databases including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, as well as the list of references in the selected articles to identify all population-based cross-sectional studies that concerned the prevalence of VI and blindness in populations under 20 years of age up to January 2018, regardless of the publication date and language, gender, region of residence, or race. VI was reported based on presenting visual acuity (PVA), uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), and best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of equal to 20/60 or worse in the better eye. Blindness was reported as visual acuity worse than 20/400 in the better eye. Results: In the present study, 5711 articles were identified, and the final analyses were done on 80 articles including 769,720 people from twenty-eight different countries. The prevalence of VI based on UCVA was 7.26% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.34%-10.19%), PVA was 3.82% (95% CI: 2.06%-5.57%), BCVA was 1.67% (95% CI 0.97%-2.37%), and blindness was 0.17% (95% CI: 0.13%-0.21%). Refractive errors were the most common cause of VI in the subjects of selected articles (77.20% [95% CI: 73.40%-81.00%]). The prevalence of amblyopia was 7.60% (95% CI: 05.60%-09.10%) and congenital cataract was 0.60% (95% CI: 0.3%-0.9%). Conclusion: Despite differences in the definition of VI and blindness, based on PVA, 3.82%, and based on BCVA, 1.67% of the examined samples suffer from VI.

Indexed as

BlindnessChildrenLow visionVisual impairment

Identifiers

PMID35620376
PMCPMC9128433
OpenAlexW4282933089

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.