2017
DOI: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2017.5001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Generational Differences in the 5-Year Incidence of Age-Related Macular Degeneration

Abstract: IMPORTANCE Whether a reported decline in the risk of developing age-related macular degeneration (AMD) continued for people born during the Baby Boom years (1946)(1947)(1948)(1949)(1950)(1951)(1952)(1953)(1954)(1955)(1956)(1957)(1958)(1959)(1960)(1961)(1962)(1963)(1964) or later is unknown. These data are important to plan for ocular health care needs in the 21st century.OBJECTIVES To determine whether the 5-year risk for AMD declined by generation and to identify factors that contributed to improvement in ris… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
25
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 38 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
1
25
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The estimates do not take into account any changes in the age-specific risk of sensory loss that may have occurred over this time frame, but we have no reason to assume that such changes significantly influence our results, because the prevalence proportions used were calculated from data collected in between the two censuses (i.e., during 2012-2015). The age-specific prevalence of HL and vision loss does, however, appear to be decreasing, perhaps in response to reduced lifetime exposure to risk factors in later generations of seniors (Cruickshanks et al, 2017;Hoffman, Dobie, Losonczy, Themann, & Flamme, 2017;Zhan et al, 2010). Therefore, our estimates of change over time may be slightly overestimated, and future increases may be lower than predicted based solely on changes in population size and age distribution.…”
Section: Hearing and Vision Loss In Canadamentioning
confidence: 64%
“…The estimates do not take into account any changes in the age-specific risk of sensory loss that may have occurred over this time frame, but we have no reason to assume that such changes significantly influence our results, because the prevalence proportions used were calculated from data collected in between the two censuses (i.e., during 2012-2015). The age-specific prevalence of HL and vision loss does, however, appear to be decreasing, perhaps in response to reduced lifetime exposure to risk factors in later generations of seniors (Cruickshanks et al, 2017;Hoffman, Dobie, Losonczy, Themann, & Flamme, 2017;Zhan et al, 2010). Therefore, our estimates of change over time may be slightly overestimated, and future increases may be lower than predicted based solely on changes in population size and age distribution.…”
Section: Hearing and Vision Loss In Canadamentioning
confidence: 64%
“…The estimates do not take into account any changes in the age-specific risk of sensory loss that may have occurred over this time frame, but we have no reason to assume that such changes significantly influence our results because the prevalence proportions used were calculated from data collected in between the two censuses (i.e., during 2012-2015). The age-specific prevalence of hearing loss and vision loss does, however, appear to be decreasing, perhaps in response to reduced lifetime exposure to risk factors in later generations of seniors (Cruickshanks et al, 2017;Hoffman, Dobie, Losonczy, Themann, & Flamme, 2017;Zhan et al, 2010). Therefore, our estimates of change over time may be slightly overestimated and future increases may be lower than predicted based solely on changes in population size and age distribution.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recent powerful advances in diagnostic and treatment options have been credited as a major source of this downward trend for AMD. [10, 11] A marked stability characterized blindness where the benefit of clinical advance remains limited, with blindness in the per decade range of 5%-7% for retinitis pigmentosa and 7–9% for congenital conditions over the past thirty years.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%