ArticlePloS one2022
Geospatial analysis of blindness within rural and urban counties.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mapping disparities in diabetic eye exam adherence using geographic information systems.PloS one · 2026Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo determine the associations of blindness within rural and urban counties using a registry of blind persons and geospatial analytics.
methodsWe used the Oregon Commission for the Blind registry to determine the number of persons who are legally blind, as well as licensure data to determine the density of eye care providers (optometrists and ophthalmologists) within each county of the State of Oregon. We used geospatial statistics, analysis of variance, and logistic regression to determine the explanatory variables associated with blindness within counties.
resultsWe included 8350 individuals who are legally blind within the state of Oregon in the calendar year 2015. The mean observed prevalence of registered blindness was 0.21% and ranged almost 9-fold from 0.04% to 0.58% among counties (p < .001). In univariate models, higher blindness was associated with increasing median age (p = .027), minority race (p < .001), decreased median household income (p < .001), increased poverty within a county (p < .001), and higher density of ophthalmologists (p = .003). Density of optometrists was not associated with prevalence of blindness (p = .89). The final multivariable model showed higher blindness to be associated with lower median household income, higher proportion of black race, and lower proportion of Hispanic race (p < .001 for all).
conclusionGeospatial analytics identified counties with higher and lower than expected proportions of blindness even when adjusted for sociodemographic factors. Clinicians and researchers may use the methods and results of this study to better understand the distribution of individuals with blindness and the associated factors to help design public health interventions.
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.