↓ Skip to main content

Michigan Publishing

Article Metrics

Magnitude, temporal trends, and projections of the global prevalence of blindness and distance and near vision impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in The Lancet Global Health, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#6 of 1,554)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
114 news outlets
twitter
85 tweeters
facebook
10 Facebook pages
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
219 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
911 Mendeley
Title
Magnitude, temporal trends, and projections of the global prevalence of blindness and distance and near vision impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
The Lancet Global Health, September 2017
DOI 10.1016/s2214-109x(17)30293-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rupert R A Bourne, Seth R Flaxman, Tasanee Braithwaite, Maria V Cicinelli, Aditi Das, Jost B Jonas, Jill Keeffe, John H Kempen, Janet Leasher, Hans Limburg, Kovin Naidoo, Konrad Pesudovs, Serge Resnikoff, Alex Silvester, Gretchen A Stevens, Nina Tahhan, Tien Y Wong, Hugh R Taylor, Rupert Bourne, Peter Ackland, Aries Arditi, Yaniv Barkana, Banu Bozkurt, TASANEE BRAITHWAITE, Alain Bron, Donald Budenz, Feng Cai, Robert Casson, Usha Chakravarthy, Jaewan Choi, Maria Vittoria Cicinelli, Nathan Congdon, Reza Dana, Rakhi Dandona, Lalit Dandona, Aditi Das, Iva Dekaris, Monte Del Monte, Jenny Deva, Laura Dreer, Leon Ellwein, Marcela Frazier, Kevin Frick, David Friedman, Joao Furtado, Hua Gao, Gus Gazzard, Ronnie George, Stephen Gichuhi, Victor Gonzalez, Billy Hammond, Mary Elizabeth Hartnett, Minguang He, James Hejtmancik, Flavio Hirai, John Huang, April Ingram, Jonathan Javitt, Jost Jonas, Charlotte Joslin, Jill Keeffe, John Kempen, Moncef Khairallah, Rohit Khanna, Judy Kim, George Lambrou, Van Charles Lansingh, Paolo Lanzetta, Janet Leasher, Jennifer Lim, Hans LIMBURG, Kaweh Mansouri, Anu Mathew, Alan Morse, Beatriz Munoz, David Musch, Kovin Naidoo, Vinay Nangia, MARIA PALAIOU, Maurizio Battaglia Parodi, Fernando Yaacov Pena, Konrad Pesudovs, Tunde Peto, Harry Quigley, Murugesan Raju, Pradeep Ramulu, Serge Resnikoff, Alan Robin, Luca Rossetti, Jinan Saaddine, MYA SANDAR, Janet Serle, Tueng Shen, Rajesh Shetty, Pamela Sieving, Juan Carlos Silva, Alex Silvester, Rita S Sitorus, Dwight Stambolian, Gretchen Stevens, Hugh Taylor, Jaime Tejedor, James Tielsch, Miltiadis Tsilimbaris, Jan van Meurs, Rohit Varma, Gianni Virgili, Jimmy Volmink, Ya Xing Wang, Ning-Li Wang, Sheila West, Peter Wiedemann, Tien Wong, Richard Wormald, Yingfeng Zheng

Abstract

Global and regional prevalence estimates for blindness and vision impairment are important for the development of public health policies. We aimed to provide global estimates, trends, and projections of global blindness and vision impairment. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based datasets relevant to global vision impairment and blindness that were published between 1980 and 2015. We fitted hierarchical models to estimate the prevalence (by age, country, and sex), in 2015, of mild visual impairment (presenting visual acuity worse than 6/12 to 6/18 inclusive), moderate to severe visual impairment (presenting visual acuity worse than 6/18 to 3/60 inclusive), blindness (presenting visual acuity worse than 3/60), and functional presbyopia (defined as presenting near vision worse than N6 or N8 at 40 cm when best-corrected distance visual acuity was better than 6/12). Globally, of the 7·33 billion people alive in 2015, an estimated 36·0 million (80% uncertainty interval [UI] 12·9-65·4) were blind (crude prevalence 0·48%; 80% UI 0·17-0·87; 56% female), 216·6 million (80% UI 98·5-359·1) people had moderate to severe visual impairment (2·95%, 80% UI 1·34-4·89; 55% female), and 188·5 million (80% UI 64·5-350·2) had mild visual impairment (2·57%, 80% UI 0·88-4·77; 54% female). Functional presbyopia affected an estimated 1094·7 million (80% UI 581·1-1686·5) people aged 35 years and older, with 666·7 million (80% UI 364·9-997·6) being aged 50 years or older. The estimated number of blind people increased by 17·6%, from 30·6 million (80% UI 9·9-57·3) in 1990 to 36·0 million (80% UI 12·9-65·4) in 2015. This change was attributable to three factors, namely an increase because of population growth (38·4%), population ageing after accounting for population growth (34·6%), and reduction in age-specific prevalence (-36·7%). The number of people with moderate and severe visual impairment also increased, from 159·9 million (80% UI 68·3-270·0) in 1990 to 216·6 million (80% UI 98·5-359·1) in 2015. There is an ongoing reduction in the age-standardised prevalence of blindness and visual impairment, yet the growth and ageing of the world's population is causing a substantial increase in number of people affected. These observations, plus a very large contribution from uncorrected presbyopia, highlight the need to scale up vision impairment alleviation efforts at all levels. Brien Holden Vision Institute.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 85 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 911 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 911 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 175 19%
Unspecified 172 19%
Student > Bachelor 158 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 95 10%
Researcher 88 10%
Other 223 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 256 28%
Unspecified 214 23%
Engineering 90 10%
Computer Science 65 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 64 7%
Other 222 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 949. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 June 2019.
All research outputs
#4,183
of 13,218,736 outputs
Outputs from The Lancet Global Health
#6
of 1,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#217
of 266,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Lancet Global Health
#1
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,218,736 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 41.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 266,261 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.