SynthesisBMJ open ophthalmology2025
Prevalence of refractive error 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.
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.
- The Changing Natural History of Anisometropia: A Scoping Review.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Article
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
aimsThis study aimed to compare the prevalence of (1) presenting vision loss from refractive error, (2) subtypes of refractive error and (3) rates of spectacle coverage and use between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians in urban and rural locations.
methodsJoanna Briggs Institute guidance for systematic reviews of prevalence studies was followed. Medline, Embase, Web of Science and relevant grey literature were searched. All studies reporting refractive error prevalence in Australian populations were included. Pooled prevalence estimates were derived using meta-analyses with a random-effects model.
results17 studies were included (22 450 adults and 13 493 children). Pooled prevalence of bilateral distance vision loss from refractive error was 7.5% (95% CI, 4.6% to 11.1%) and 4.5% (95% CI, 2.7% to 6.8%) among Indigenous and non-Indigenous adults, respectively (p=0.126). Bilateral blindness occurred in 0.19% (95% CI, 0.00% to 0.75%) and 0.01% (95% CI, 0.00% to 0.09%) of Indigenous and non-Indigenous adults, respectively (p=0.265). Myopia, astigmatism and anisometropia were similar among Indigenous and non-Indigenous children (6.2% vs 5.3% (p=0.750), 5.2% vs 5.6% (p=0.928) and 4.1% vs 5.0% (p=0.661), respectively). Narrative synthesis of studies suggested Indigenous people had lower spectacle coverage and lower use of the spectacles they owned.
conclusionsVision loss from refractive error is common in Australia, with Indigenous people particularly affected by lower spectacle coverage and use. National strategies for addressing this should be considered, such as the national spectacle subsidy scheme. 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.