ArticleOphthalmology science2022
The Refractive Error and Vision Impairment Estimation with Spectacle Data Study.
Article in Ophthalmology science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Global Patterns of Myopia, Age, Sex, and Vision Loss: A Comparative Analysis of US and South Korean National Surveys.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Refractive error and vision related quality of life.BMC ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Using electronic medical record data to establish and monitor the distribution of refractive errorsJournal of optometry · 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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To investigate whether spectacle lens sales data can be used to estimate the population distribution of refractive error among patients with ametropia and hence to estimate the current and future risk of vision impairment. Design: Cross-sectional study. Participants: A total of 141 547 436 spectacle lens sales records from an international European lens manufacturer between 1998 and 2016. Methods: Anonymized patient spectacle lens sales data, including refractive error information, was provided by a major European spectacle lens manufacturer. Data from the Gutenberg Health Survey was digitized to allow comparison of a representative, population-based sample with the spectacle lens sales data. A bootstrap analysis was completed to assess the comparability of both datasets. The expected level of vision impairment resulting from myopia at 75 years of age was calculated for both datasets using a previously published risk estimation equation combined with a saturation function. Main Outcome Measures: Comparability of spectacle lens sales data on refractive error with typical population surveys of refractive error and its potential usefulness to predict vision impairment resulting from refractive error. Results: Equivalent estimates of the population distribution of spherical equivalent refraction can be provided from spectacle lens data within limits. For myopia, the population distribution was equivalent to the Gutenberg Health Survey (≤ 5% deviation) for levels of -2.0 diopters (D) or less, whereas for hyperopia, the distribution was equivalent (≤ 5% deviation) for levels of +3.0 D or more. The estimated rates of vision impairment resulting from myopia were not statistically significantly different (chi-square, 182; degrees of freedom, 169; Conclusions: The distribution of refractive error and hence the risk of vision impairment resulting from refractive error within a population can be determined using spectacle lens sales data. Pooling this type of data from multiple industry sources could provide a cost-effective, timely, and globally representative mechanism for monitoring the evolving epidemiologic features of refractive error and associated vision impairment.
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.