ArticleClinical optometry2026
A Descriptive Study of Refractive Error Among Adults in Selected Practices in Witbank, South Africa.
Article in Clinical optometry, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Refractive errors are among the leading causes of visual impairment globally and remain a significant contributor to avoidable vision loss in South Africa. However, data describing refractive error patterns within private optometry settings in urban areas such as Witbank remains limited. Patients and Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional study of 1245 clinical records selected through systematic random sampling at three selected private optometry practices in Witbank. Data included demographic characteristics, unaided visual acuity, refractive status, and presbyopia. The mean age of participants was 44.58 ± 13.9 years, with an age range from 18 to 101 years. Data were analysed using SPSS version 28, employing descriptive and inferential statistics with statistical significance set at P<0.05. Results: Overall, 66% presented with refractive error,51% were female and 49% were male. The majority of the participants with refractive error were black Africans (72%), followed by whites (25%). Astigmatism was the most prevalent (43%), followed by myopia (13%) and hyperopia (10%). Compound myopic astigmatism (51%) was the dominant subtype. Hyperopic participants had a mean age of 57.82 years, while myopic individuals had a mean age of 39.29 years. Most patients presenting with reduced unaided visual acuity had astigmatism (58%), followed by myopia (28%). No significant associations were found between refractive errors: myopia (p<0.376; Cramer's V=0.437), hyperopia (p<0.284; Cramer's V =0.4), and astigmatism (p<0.888, Cramer's V=0.159), and gender. Similarly, no significant association was found between refractive errors (myopia (p<0.208; Cramer's V=0.448), hyperopia (p<0.719; Cramer's V=0.347), and astigmatism (p<0.325; Cramer's V=0.205)) and ethnicity. The majority (70.6%) of participants aged 35 and older had presbyopia. Conclusion: The study's findings reveal a significant prevalence of refractive errors in the population examined, with astigmatism constituting nearly half of all identified cases. This data provides a valuable baseline for eye care planning in similar clinical settings.
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.