↓ Skip to main content

Prevalence and Causes of Unilateral Vision Impairment and Unilateral Blindness in Australia: The National Eye Health Survey

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA Ophthalmology, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Prevalence and Causes of Unilateral Vision Impairment and Unilateral Blindness in Australia: The National Eye Health Survey
Published in
JAMA Ophthalmology, March 2018
DOI 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2017.6457
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joshua Foreman, Jing Xie, Stuart Keel, Ghee Soon Ang, Pei Ying Lee, Rupert Bourne, Jonathan G. Crowston, Hugh R. Taylor, Mohamed Dirani

Abstract

This study determines the prevalence of unilateral vision impairment (VI) and unilateral blindness to assist in policy formulation for eye health care services. To determine the prevalence and causes of unilateral VI and unilateral blindness in Australia. This cross-sectional population-based survey was conducted from March 2015 to April 2016 at 30 randomly selected sites across all strata of geographic remoteness in Australia. A total of 1738 indigenous Australians 40 years or older and 3098 nonindigenous Australians 50 years or older were included. The prevalence and causes of unilateral vision impairment and blindness, defined as presenting visual acuity worse than 6/12 and 6/60, respectively, in the worse eye, and 6/12 or better in the better eye. Of the 1738 indigenous Australians, mean (SD) age was 55.0 (10.0) years, and 1024 participants (58.9%) were female. Among the 3098 nonindigenous Australians, mean (SD) age was 66.6 (9.7) years, and 1661 participants (53.6%) were female. The weighted prevalence of unilateral VI in indigenous Australians was 12.5% (95% CI, 11.0%-14.2%) and the prevalence of unilateral blindness was 2.4% (95% CI, 1.7%-3.3%), respectively. In nonindigenous Australians, the prevalence of unilateral VI was 14.6% (95% CI, 13.1%-16.3%) and unilateral blindness was found in 1.4% (95% CI, 1.0%-1.8%). The age-adjusted and sex-adjusted prevalence of unilateral vision loss was higher in indigenous Australians than nonindigenous Australians (VI: 18.7% vs 14.5%; P = .02; blindness: 2.9% vs 1.3%; P = .02). Risk factors for unilateral vision loss included older age (odds ratio [OR], 1.60 for each decade of age for indigenous Australians; 95% CI, 1.39-1.86; OR, 1.65 per decade for nonindigenous Australians; 95% CI, 1.38-1.96), very remote residence (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.01-2.74) and self-reported diabetes (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.12-2.07) for indigenous Australians, and having not undergone an eye examination in the past 2 years for nonindigenous Australians (OR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.04-2.27). Uncorrected refractive error and cataract were leading causes of unilateral VI in both populations (70%-75%). Corneal pathology (16.7%) and cataract (13.9%) were leading causes of unilateral blindness in indigenous Australians, while amblyopia (18.8%), trauma (16.7%), and age-related macular degeneration (10.4%) were major causes of unilateral blindness in nonindigenous Australians. Unilateral vision loss is prevalent in indigenous and nonindigenous Australians; however, most cases are avoidable. As those with unilateral vision loss caused by cataract and posterior segment diseases may be at great risk of progressing to bilateral blindness, national blindness prevention programs may benefit from prioritising examination and treatment of those with unilateral vision loss.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Student > Master 6 9%
Other 5 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 4%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 28 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Psychology 3 4%
Arts and Humanities 2 3%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 31 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 08 June 2020.
All research outputs
#4,303,041
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Ophthalmology
#1,822
of 6,643 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,593
of 344,853 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Ophthalmology
#48
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,643 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 344,853 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.