SynthesisBMJ open ophthalmology2025
Prevalence of visually significant cataract and cataract surgical coverage in Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ open ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prevalence of refractive error in Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsCompare the prevalence of age-related cataract and the cataract surgical coverage rate between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians and explore differences in these estimates across location and time.
methodsThe Joanna Briggs Institute guidance for systematic reviews of prevalence studies was followed. A systematic search of Medline, Embase, Web of Science and grey literature from database inception to June 2022 was performed. All studies reporting cataract prevalence in Australian populations were included. Pooled prevalence estimates were derived using meta-analyses with a random-effects model. Nine studies enrolling 36 302 participants were included. Most studies only reported the prevalence of cataract causing vision loss (visual acuity<6/12) or blindness (visual acuity<6/60), restricting our meta-analysis to these definitions.
resultsCataract causing unilateral vision loss was common in both Indigenous and non-Indigenous adults (3.5% and 3.6%, p=0.891). Indigenous adults had a higher prevalence of bilateral vision loss (3.6% vs 1.1%, p=0.011) and bilateral blindness (0.385% vs 0.001%, p=0.002) than non-Indigenous adults. Cataract surgical coverage was lower in Indigenous (68.0%; 95% CI, 55.9 to 79.0) than non-Indigenous (88.4%; 95% CI, 79.9 to 94.8) adults (p=0.004). No differences in bilateral vision loss, blindness or surgical coverage were found between rural and urban subgroups or between studies conducted before and after the year 2000.
conclusionsCataract causes vision loss in a substantial number of adults living in urban and rural Australia. Policies to improve diagnosis and surgery rates should be prioritised, particularly for Indigenous Australians who experience a disproportionate burden of advanced cataract and reduced access to surgery. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022340197.
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.