ArticleInternational health2025
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.
Article in International health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is limited evidence on prevalence of uncorrected refractive errors (URE) in younger population. This study assessed prevalence of URE, spectacle coverage and barriers to RE services among individuals aged 15-49 y in Kasganj district, North India.
methodsThis was a cross-sectional population-based survey, where uncorrected, corrected and best-corrected visual acuity and lens status were assessed. Updated WHO definitions were used for VI, URE, refractive error coverage (REC) and effective REC (eREC).
resultsOf 3167 people examined, VI was identified in 73 cases (2.3%). Age-sex adjusted prevalence of URE was 3.2% (2.5-4.1%) which increased significantly above 40 years (8.8%). Females were more affected than males (3.7% vs 2.8%). Presbyopia affected 42.7% of people aged >35yrs, with higher rates among females (44.6% vs males 40.9%). REC and eREC for distance were 32.5% and 27.5%, respectively, with notable gender disparities. REC for presbyopia was 14.7% (males: 19.7%; females: 9.6%). Distance to services (40%), social constraints (28%) and 'low perceived need' (22%) were identified as the key barriers to accessing RE services.
conclusionsURE is a major public health challenge amongst working population in rural North India. Targeted interventions to increase coverage are needed to meet WHO's 2030 target.
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.