SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Beyond prevalence: diagnostic heterogeneity in population-based glaucoma studies in Africa-a systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The burden of glaucoma is disproportionately high in Africa. While numerous population-based studies have reported prevalence estimates, little attention has been given to the diagnostic criteria underpinning these findings.Objective: This review sought to systematically examine the diagnostic criteria used to define glaucoma in population-based studies in Africa, and to synthesize corresponding estimates of glaucoma prevalence. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, and African Journals Online identified population-based studies on glaucoma prevalence in Africa. Diagnostic approaches were classified by adherence to the International Society of Geographical and Epidemiological Ophthalmology (ISGEO) criteria. The primary outcome was the diagnostic framework used, with secondary outcomes including prevalence estimates for major glaucoma subtypes. Results: Nine studies met the inclusion criteria. The use of ISGEO definitions varied considerably across the studies. Key sources of heterogeneity included intraocular pressure thresholds, optic nerve head assessment, use of visual field testing, and gonioscopy application. Studies applying the full ISGEO definitions generally had a trend of reported prevalence estimates within a narrower range (4.3% to 5.3%), whereas studies employing partial ISGEO or non-ISGEO diagnostic approaches reported a broader range of prevalence estimates (2.1% to 8.4%). The proportion of previously diagnosed glaucoma cases was low, ranging from 3.3% to 14.3% among studies that reported previously diagnosed glaucoma rates ( Conclusion: Diagnostic heterogeneity remains a major limitation to the comparability of glaucoma prevalence estimates across Africa. Standardized reporting of diagnostic protocols, together with clear justification of the diagnostic approaches employed, is essential to improve the interpretation and comparability of future epidemiological studies while recognizing the practical constraints of resource-limited settings. Systematic Review Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/ CRD42024592160], identifier [CRD42024592160].
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.