ArticleOphthalmology2024
Visual Impairment from Uncorrected Refractive Error among Participants in a Novel Program to Improve Eye Care Access among Low-Income Adults in Michigan.
Article in Ophthalmology, 2024. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinic-based prevalence of uncorrected refractive errors and associated visual impairment: a nationwide cross-sectional study of 3.6 million outpatients in Mexico.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Health utility values associated with vision impairment among the elderly in Hong Kong: a community-based study using EQ-5D-5 L and time trade-off.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2026Article
- Association between visual impairment and recurrent hospitalizations in older US adults.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo assess the rate of visual impairment (VI) from uncorrected refractive error (URE) and associations with demographic and socioeconomic factors among low-income patients presenting to the Michigan Screening and Intervention for Glaucoma and Eye Health through Telemedicine (MI-SIGHT) program.
designCross-sectional study.
participantsAdults ≥ 18 years without acute ocular symptoms.
methodsMI-SIGHT program participants received a telemedicine-based eye disease screening and ordered glasses through an online optical store. Participants were categorized based on refractive error (RE) status: VI from URE (presenting visual acuity [PVA], ≤ 20/50; best-corrected visual acuity [BCVA], ≥ 20/40), URE without VI (PVA, ≥ 20/40; ≥ 2-line improvement to BCVA), and no or adequately corrected RE (PVA, ≥ 20/40; < 2-line improvement to BCVA). Patient demographics, self-reported visual function, and satisfaction with glasses obtained through the program were compared among groups using analysis of variance, Kruskal-Wallis, chi-square, and Fisher exact testing.
main outcome measuresPVA, BCVA, and presence of VI (defined as PVA ≤ 20/50).
resultsOf 1171 participants enrolled in the MI-SIGHT program during the first year, average age was 55.1 years (SD = 14.5), 37.7% were male, 54.1% identified as Black, and 1166 (99.6%) had both PVA and BCVA measured. VI was observed in 120 participants (10.3%); 96 had VI from URE (8.2%), 168 participants (14.4%) had URE without VI, and 878 (75.3%) had no or adequately corrected RE. A smaller percentage of participants with VI resulting from URE reported having a college degree, and a larger percentage reported income < $10 000 compared with participants with no or adequately corrected RE (3.2% vs. 14.2% [P = 0.02]; 45.5% vs. 21.6% [P < 0.0001], respectively). Visual function was lowest among participants with VI from URE, followed by those with URE without VI, and then those with no or adequately corrected RE (9-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire composite score, 67.3 ± 19.6 vs. 77.0 ± 14.4 vs. 82.2 ± 13.3, respectively; P < 0.0001). In total, 71.2% (n = 830) ordered glasses for an average cost of $36.80 ± $32.60; 97.7% were satisfied with their glasses.
conclusionsURE was the main cause of VI at 2 clinics serving low-income communities and was associated with reduced vision-related quality of life. An online optical store with lower prices made eyeglasses accessible to low-income patients. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
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.