ArticleBMC ophthalmology2023
High prevalence of refractive errors in an elderly population; a public health issue.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accuracy of 11 intraocular lens power calculation formulas in short eyes.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026Article
- Comparative study of refractive errors between patients with Parkinson's disease versus age- and sex-matched healthy controls.BMC neurology · 2026Article
- Prevalence of Refractive Errors, Myopic Macular Degeneration, and Associated Risk Factors in a Maltese Population-Based Study.Clinical optometry · 2026Article
- Correlation between refractive errors and ocular biometric parameters at Al-Mustaqbal University, Iraq.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Cataract surgery in the extremely small eye: morphology, comorbidities and outcomes in 300 eyes.The British journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Retinal nerve fiber layer thickness profile in an Iranian adult population.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Evaluating the Rate and Causes of Non-candidacy After Laser-Assisted in Situ Keratomileusis (LASIK) Screening.Cureus · 2025Article
- 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
- Auto-refraction versus subjective refraction in different phakic and pseudophakic conditions: the Tehran Geriatric Eye Study (TGES).International journal of ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Axial length and anterior chamber indices in elderly population: Tehran Geriatric Eye Study.International journal of 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo determine the prevalence of myopia and hyperopia and their associated demographic and ocular factors in people 60 years of age and above.
methodsThe sampling was performed using a multi-stage stratified random cluster sampling method. The complete demographic and case history information were collected through an interview. Then, all participants underwent optometric examinations including measurement of uncorrected and best-corrected visual acuity, objective, and subjective refraction. Myopia and hyperopia were defined as a spherical equivalent (SE) refraction worse than -0.50 diopters (D) and + 0.50 D, respectively.
resultsThree thousand three hundred ten of 3791 invitees participated, and the data of 3263 individuals were analyzed for this report. The mean age of participants was 68.25 ± 6.53 (60 to 97) years, and 1895 (58.1%) of them were female (number of male/female participants = 1368/1895). The prevalence of myopia and hyperopia was 31.65% (95% CI: 29.68 -33.61) and 45.36% (95% CI: 43.36 -47.37), respectively. The prevalence of severe myopia and hyperopia was 1.14% (95% CI: 0.73 -1.55) and 2.27% (95% CI: 1.57 -2.97), respectively. Based on the results of multiple logistic regression, the prevalence of myopia had a statistically significant direct relationship with age (OR: 1.04; p < 0.001), history of glaucoma surgery (OR:2.75; p < 0.001), pseudophakia (OR: 2.27; p < 0.001), axial length (OR:3.05; p < 0.001), and mean keratometry (OR:1.61; p < 0.001). The education level was significantly inversely related to the myopia prevalence. Moreover, a history of glaucoma surgery (OR:0.44; p < 0.001), pseudophakia (OR = 0.15; p < 0.001), axial length (OR:35; p < 0.001) and mean keratometry (OR:0.62; p < 0.001) were significantly inversely related to the prevalence of hyperopia. 19% and 40.02% of myopic and hyperopic patients had complete visual acuity after correction of refractive error, respectively.
conclusionThe prevalence of refractive errors was high in the Iranian elderly population. A large percentage of the elderly still did not have complete visual acuity after the correction of refractive errors indicating the necessity for attention to other ocular diseases in this age group. The history of cataract and glaucoma surgery could be associated with a myopic shift of refractive error.
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.