ArticleEye (London, England)2024
Prevalence of visual impairment, uncorrected refractive errors and effective refractive error coverage in Koshi Province, Nepal - Rapid Assessment of Refractive Errors.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Subjective and objective visual impairment and all-cause mortality in older US adults: the role of physical activity and depressive symptoms in NHANES 2007-2008.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Measuring the prevalence of uncorrected refractive errors and refractive error coverage among the young working age population in Kasganj district, Uttar Pradesh, India, using rapid assessment of refractive error methodology.International health · 2025Article
- Effective refractive error coverage and quality gaps in Bhutan: evidence from rapid assessment of refractive error.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Uncorrected refractive errors, visual impairment and need for spectacles among children and adolescents in eastern, China.PloS one · 2025Article
- Prevalence and association of uncorrected refractive error among Chinese adolescents: a cross-sectional study.BMC public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectiveTo determine the prevalence of visual impairment (VI), uncorrected refractive errors (URE), and effective refractive error coverage among individuals aged 15-50 years in Koshi Province, Nepal.
methodsA population-based cross-sectional study was conducted in Koshi Province in which 4800 participants were selected from 80 clusters. The study teams visited the selected households and conducted eye examinations. This included monocular unaided (and aided) visual acuity assessment using a Snellen chart with tumbling E optotypes at a distance of 6 meters. Near vision was assessed binocularly using the N notation chart at a fixed distance of 40 cm for each individual. Torchlight examination and distance direct ophthalmoscopy was done. VI was defined as presenting visual acuity worse than 6/12 in the better eye. URE was defined as presenting visual acuity worse than 6/12 and improving to 6/12 or better on using a pinhole. Near Vision Impairment was defined as binocular presenting near vision worse than N8 among those age 35 years and older.
resultsIn total, 4057 were examined (84.5% response rate). The prevalence of VI was 3.52% (95% CI:2.89-4.13; n = 143). The prevalence of URE in the better eye was 1.95% (95% CI:1.54-2.42; n = 79). The Refractive Error Coverage and Effective Refractive Error Coverage were 34.8% and 31.3% respectively. The prevalence of NVI was 34.24% (95% CI: 32.1-36.40; n = 666).
conclusionThe prevalence of VI and URE was low, attributed to the availability and uptake of services in Koshi province in Nepal.
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.