ArticleEClinicalMedicine2026
Estimating the prevalence of visual impairment in the Netherlands, with forecasts up to 2050: a meta-analysis of national databases.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2026. 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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Current prevalence estimates of visual impairment (i.e., low vision and blindness) in the Netherlands are lacking. Based on representative databases, we aimed to estimate the prevalence of visual impairment among Dutch adults and to forecast estimates to 2050. Methods: We undertook a meta-analysis of national databases. Databases were primarily identified through expert consultation and included when representative of the Dutch population and containing recent (≥2010) data on vision (visual acuity <6/18, self-reported visual functioning, or relevant International Classification of Primary Care [ICPC] codes). We classified self-reported visual functioning according to four definitions: A) only near vision difficulties; B) only distance vision difficulties; C) both near and distance vision difficulties; D) any vision difficulties (combining A-C). Population-based prevalences were calculated and pooled using four meta-analyses, including heterogeneity assessment and subgroup analyses. Age-effects were modelled using logistic mixed-effects models. Findings: We included eight databases with data collected data between 2010 and 2024, accounting for 1,814,716 individuals (894,541 males and 920,175 females). Five databases were prospective population-based cohort studies, two were periodically administered cross-sectional health surveys, and one contained registrations from general practices. Five databases had self-reported data on visual functioning, two had data on best-corrected distance visual acuity, and one included ICPC codes. There was substantial heterogeneity with assessment method as moderator (i.e., self-reported vs. visual acuity vs. ICPC; I Interpretation: Despite inherent limitations (including databases mostly containing self-reported data on visual functioning) and substantial uncertainty in estimates, this study provides population-level estimates of visual impairment in the Netherlands. Although these estimates span a wide range of values, they reveal trends and plausible uncertainty intervals, illustrating the potential magnitude of the current and future burden of visual impairment. Funding: Dutch Eye Foundation (Oogfonds).
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.