Visual Impairment and Blindness in Adults in the United States

Varma, Rohit; Vajaranant, Thasarat S.; Burkemper, Bruce; Wu, Shuang; Torres, Mina; Hsu, Chunyi; Choudhury, Farzana; McKean‐Cowdin, Roberta

doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2016.1284

Cited by 350 publications

(228 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

220

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…(1) In 2016, Varma et al reviewed six population health studies and estimated that 8.4 million adult US citizens had VI from URE (20/40 or worse) and another 0.29 million people were blind from URE. (2) This study projected a doubling of URE in the US by 2050 and a prevalence of greater than 10% in 15 US states. (2) Approximately 1 in 8 Americans age ≥50 years have near-VI worse than 20/40.…”

Section: Frequency Of Urementioning

confidence: 96%

“…(2) This study projected a doubling of URE in the US by 2050 and a prevalence of greater than 10% in 15 US states. (2) Approximately 1 in 8 Americans age ≥50 years have near-VI worse than 20/40. (5) Racial disparities exist as well.…”

Section: Frequency Of Urementioning

confidence: 97%

“…(1, 2) Low-cost, practical treatment is available for myopia, hyperopia, astigmatism, and presbyopia. (3–5) Interventions to address refractive error (RE) can reduce or prevent a high proportion of individuals from experiencing unnecessary vision loss and blindness, can decrease associated costs to the economy for medical services, lost productivity, and improve the quality of life (QoL) for affected individuals.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(3–5) Interventions to address refractive error (RE) can reduce or prevent a high proportion of individuals from experiencing unnecessary vision loss and blindness, can decrease associated costs to the economy for medical services, lost productivity, and improve the quality of life (QoL) for affected individuals. (2, 6) Key investigators across the nation including the National Academy of Medicine have recommended the inclusion of ophthalmic measures in health surveys to reach the vision-related objectives of Healthy People 2020. (5, 7, 8) Our review explores the scope of URE both in the United States (US) and globally, to identify health and lifestyle consequences associated with URE, to identify the underlying reasons for URE, and to explore interventions for this preventable cause of VI.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Refractive error in underserved adults

Jeganathan

Robin

Woodward

2017

Current Opinion in Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose of Review To evaluate the epidemiology of uncorrected refractive errors (URE) in adults both in the US and globally, health outcomes impacted by URE, common barriers to treatment, and propose potential interventions. Recent Findings URE is the main cause of visual impairment (VI) and the second leading cause of blindness globally. Rates of URE are rising, and cause disability that reduces productivity, economic earnings, and the quality of life of affected individuals. Economic barriers, health care access, and socio-cultural constraints are among the most fundamental barriers to correcting URE. However, innovative approaches are poised to lower rates of URE. Summary URE is a leading cause of preventable VI with serious health consequences. Numerous social and financial barriers are associated with the high prevalence of URE in low-income adults. Novel delivery programs for eyeglasses and programs to provide refractive surgery to correct refractive error could decrease rates of URE.

show abstract

Section: Frequency Of Urementioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Frequency Of Urementioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Refractive error in underserved adults

Jeganathan

Robin

Woodward

2017

Current Opinion in Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In line with changing demographics that impact social services and health care budgets worldwide, new ideas for diagnostic tools and treatments are gaining increasing interest, especially if they are less costly than at present [1][2][3] . There is scope for inexpensive, user-friendly, automated methods for measuring the visual field in situations where conventional methods are not practical.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can DMCO Detect Visual Field Loss in Neurological Patients? A Secondary Validation Study

Olsen

Steensberg²,

Cour

et al. 2017

Ophthalmic Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Unrecognized visual field loss is caused by a range of blinding eye conditions as well as serious brain diseases. The commonest cause of asymptomatic visual field loss is glaucoma. No screening tools have been proven cost-effective. Damato Multifixation Campimetry Online (DMCO), an inexpensive online test, has been evaluated as a future cost-beneficial tool to detect glaucoma. To further validate DMCO, this study aimed to test DMCO in a preselected population with neurological visual field loss. Methods: The study design was an evaluation of a diagnostic test. Patients were included if they had undergone surgery for epilepsy during 2011-2014, resulting in visual field loss. They were examined with DMCO and results were compared with those obtained with the Humphrey Field Analyzer (30:2 SITA-Fast). DMCO sensitivity and specificity were estimated with 95% confidence intervals. Results: The cohort comprised 40 patients (25 female and 15 male) with a mean age of 39 years (range 17-60 years). The mean visual acuity was >1.0 and all eyes had an intraocular pressure <21 mm Hg. Sensitivity and specificity of DMCO compared to the reference standard were 72.7 and 96.3%, respectively. Conclusions: DMCO detects moderate-to-severe homonymous quadrantanopia; it can be useful in settings where the current practice is confrontation visual field examination, and where standard conventional perimetry is not available.

show abstract

Screening for Impaired Visual Acuity in Older Adults

Mangione

Barry

Nicholson

et al. 2022

JAMA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ImportanceImpairment of visual acuity is a serious public health problem in older adults. The number of persons 60 years or older with impaired visual acuity (defined as best corrected visual acuity worse than 20/40 but better than 20/200) was estimated at 2.91 million in 2015, and the number who are blind (defined as best corrected visual acuity of 20/200 or worse) was estimated at 760 000. 1 Impaired visual acuity is consistently associated with decreased quality of life in older persons, including reduced ability to perform activities of daily living, work, and drive safely, as well as increased risk of falls and other unintentional injuries. [2][3][4][5][6] USPSTF Assessment of Magnitude of Net BenefitThe US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) concludes that the evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for impaired visual acuity in asymptomatic older adults. The evidence is lacking, and the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined. More research is needed. IMPORTANCE Impairment of visual acuity is a serious public health problem in older adults. The number of persons 60 years or older with impaired visual acuity (defined as best corrected visual acuity worse than 20/40 but better than 20/200) was estimated at 2.91 million in 2015, and the number who are blind (defined as best corrected visual acuity of 20/200 or worse) was estimated at 760 000. Impaired visual acuity is consistently associated with decreased quality of life in older persons, including reduced ability to perform activities of daily living, work, and drive safely, as well as increased risk of falls and other unintentional injuries.OBJECTIVE To update its 2016 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the benefits and harms of screening for impaired visual acuity in older adults.POPULATION Asymptomatic adults 65 years or older who present in primary care without known impaired visual acuity and are not seeking care for vision problems. EVIDENCE ASSESSMENTThe USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for impaired visual acuity in asymptomatic older adults. The evidence is lacking, and the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined. More research is needed.RECOMMENDATION The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for impaired visual acuity in older adults. (I statement)

show abstract

Visual Impairment and Blindness in Adults in the United States

Cited by 350 publications

References 25 publications

Refractive error in underserved adults

Refractive error in underserved adults

Can DMCO Detect Visual Field Loss in Neurological Patients? A Secondary Validation Study

Screening for Impaired Visual Acuity in Older Adults

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About