ArticleJournal of ophthalmic & vision research
Rapid Assessment of Avoidable Visual Impairment in Two Coastal Districts of Eastern India for Determining Effective Coverage: A Cross-Sectional Study.
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 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Regional disparities in effective cataract surgical coverage and relative quality gap in India: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2026Pooled it
- Prevalence and temporal trends of vision impairment over two decades among those aged 40 years and older in Nagar Kurnool district in Telangana, India.Eye (London, England) · 2026Article
- Thirty-year changes in burden for refraction disorders in China, Japan, Korea and Singapore: a jointly prevention perspective analysis.BMC public health · 2025Article
- User satisfaction and dissatisfaction with assistive technology devices and services in India.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To measure the prevalence and causes of visual impairment (VI) among the 40+ age population in two coastal districts of India and to determine the levels of effective cataract surgical coverage (eCSC) and effective refractive error coverage (eREC) in the study population. Methods: A cross-sectional study was done on 4200 people chosen using cluster sampling in two coastal districts of Odisha, an eastern state in India. A team consisting of trained optometrists and social workers conducted the ocular examination which included unaided, pinhole, and aided visual acuity assessments followed by examination of the anterior segment and lens. Results: Overall, 3745 (89.2%) participants were examined from 60 study clusters, 30 in each district. Among those examined, 1677 (44.8%) were men, 2554 (68.2%) were educated and number? (17.8%) used distance spectacles during the survey. The prevalence of VI adjusted for age and gender was 12.77% (95% CI 11.85-13.69%). Multiple logistic regression showed that older age (OR 3.1; 95% CI 2.0-4.7) and urban residence (OR 1.2; 95% CI 1.0-1.6) were associated with VI. Being educated (OR 0.4; 95% CI 0.3-0.6) and using glasses (OR 0.3; 95% CI 0.5-0.2) were found to provide protection; therefore, resulting in lower instances of VI. Cataract (62.7%) and uncorrected refractive errors (27.1%) were the two main causes of VI. The eCSC was 35.1%, the eREC for distance was 40.0%, and the eREC for near was 35.7%. Conclusion: VI remains a challenge in Odisha, as the prevalence is high and the surgical coverage is poor. Nearly 90% of VI is avoidable indicating that targeted interventions are required to address this problem.
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.