Prevalence of Vision Loss in South and Central Asia in 2020: Magnitude and Temporal Trends.

IF 1.7 4区医学 Q3 OPHTHALMOLOGY Ophthalmic epidemiology Pub Date : 2024-12-05 DOI:10.1080/09286586.2024.2374934

{"title":"Prevalence of Vision Loss in South and Central Asia in 2020: Magnitude and Temporal Trends.","authors":"","doi":"10.1080/09286586.2024.2374934","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: To estimate the prevalence of vision loss for 2020 in South and Central Asia and analyze trends since 1990.Methods: In a systematic literature review, we estimated the prevalence of blindness, visual impairment (VI) and presbyopia-related VI in 1990,2000,2010, and 2020.Results: The study included 103 population-based studies. In South/Central Asia combined, age-standardized prevalence of blindness, moderate-to-severe VI (MSVI), moderate VI, severe VI, mild VI and presbyopia-related VI for all ages was 0.65% (95% uncertainty interval (UI):0.56/0.74), 5.06 (4.55/5.59), 4.40 (3.91/4.94), 0.65 (0.57/0.74), 3.21 (2.89/3.56), and 8.77 (6.37/11.48), respectively, with higher values for women than men. From 2000 to 2020, changes in age-standardized prevalence in South Asia were -36.85 (-36.94/-36.76), -7.01 (-7.13/-6.90), -5.86 (-5.99/-5.73), -13.96 (-14.09/-13.82), -9.55 (-9.66/-9.44), and -8.62 (-8.93/-8.31), respectively for men, and -38.50 (-38.59/-38.40), -10.12 (-10.22/-10.01), -9.23(-9.36/-9.10), -14.86 (-14.99/-14.73), -9.44 (-9.56/-9.33), and -7.78 (-8.09/-7.48), respectively for women. From 2000/2020, the changes in age-standardized prevalence figures in Central Asia were -21.44 (-21.58/-21.30), -2.75 (-2.87/-2.64), -2.17 (-2.30/-2.04), -7.12 (-7.26/-6.99), -5.36 (-5.48/-5.25), and -3.67(-4.02/-3.32), respectively for men, and -21.13 (-21.27/-20.99), -2.70 (-2.81/-2.58), -2.18 (-2.30/-2.05), -6.93 (-7.07/-6.80), -5.03 (-5.14/-4.91), and -2.65 (-3.00/-2.30), respectively, for women. In 2020, 11.94 million (9.98-14.07) and 0.30 million (0.24-0.36) individuals were blind, and 96.22 million (84.12-110.27) and 2.95 million (2.52-3.43) had MSVI in South Asia and Central Asia, respectively.Conclusions: Despite a higher decrease between 2000 and 2020, the age-standardized prevalence of blindness and MSVI were higher in South Asia than in Central Asia in 2020. The number of people affected increased due to population growth and improved longevity.","PeriodicalId":19607,"journal":{"name":"Ophthalmic epidemiology","volume":" ","pages":"1-14"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ophthalmic epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09286586.2024.2374934","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To estimate the prevalence of vision loss for 2020 in South and Central Asia and analyze trends since 1990.

Methods: In a systematic literature review, we estimated the prevalence of blindness, visual impairment (VI) and presbyopia-related VI in 1990,2000,2010, and 2020.

Results: The study included 103 population-based studies. In South/Central Asia combined, age-standardized prevalence of blindness, moderate-to-severe VI (MSVI), moderate VI, severe VI, mild VI and presbyopia-related VI for all ages was 0.65% (95% uncertainty interval (UI):0.56/0.74), 5.06 (4.55/5.59), 4.40 (3.91/4.94), 0.65 (0.57/0.74), 3.21 (2.89/3.56), and 8.77 (6.37/11.48), respectively, with higher values for women than men. From 2000 to 2020, changes in age-standardized prevalence in South Asia were -36.85 (-36.94/-36.76), -7.01 (-7.13/-6.90), -5.86 (-5.99/-5.73), -13.96 (-14.09/-13.82), -9.55 (-9.66/-9.44), and -8.62 (-8.93/-8.31), respectively for men, and -38.50 (-38.59/-38.40), -10.12 (-10.22/-10.01), -9.23(-9.36/-9.10), -14.86 (-14.99/-14.73), -9.44 (-9.56/-9.33), and -7.78 (-8.09/-7.48), respectively for women. From 2000/2020, the changes in age-standardized prevalence figures in Central Asia were -21.44 (-21.58/-21.30), -2.75 (-2.87/-2.64), -2.17 (-2.30/-2.04), -7.12 (-7.26/-6.99), -5.36 (-5.48/-5.25), and -3.67(-4.02/-3.32), respectively for men, and -21.13 (-21.27/-20.99), -2.70 (-2.81/-2.58), -2.18 (-2.30/-2.05), -6.93 (-7.07/-6.80), -5.03 (-5.14/-4.91), and -2.65 (-3.00/-2.30), respectively, for women. In 2020, 11.94 million (9.98-14.07) and 0.30 million (0.24-0.36) individuals were blind, and 96.22 million (84.12-110.27) and 2.95 million (2.52-3.43) had MSVI in South Asia and Central Asia, respectively.

Conclusions: Despite a higher decrease between 2000 and 2020, the age-standardized prevalence of blindness and MSVI were higher in South Asia than in Central Asia in 2020. The number of people affected increased due to population growth and improved longevity.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Ophthalmic epidemiology 医学-眼科学

CiteScore

3.70

自引率

5.60%

发文量

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： Ophthalmic Epidemiology is dedicated to the publication of original research into eye and vision health in the fields of epidemiology, public health and the prevention of blindness. Ophthalmic Epidemiology publishes editorials, original research reports, systematic reviews and meta-analysis articles, brief communications and letters to the editor on all subjects related to ophthalmic epidemiology. A broad range of topics is suitable, such as: evaluating the risk of ocular diseases, general and specific study designs, screening program implementation and evaluation, eye health care access, delivery and outcomes, therapeutic efficacy or effectiveness, disease prognosis and quality of life, cost-benefit analysis, biostatistical theory and risk factor analysis. We are looking to expand our engagement with reports of international interest, including those regarding problems affecting developing countries, although reports from all over the world potentially are suitable. Clinical case reports, small case series (not enough for a cohort analysis) articles and animal research reports are not appropriate for this journal.