What is the global burden of visual impairment?
© Dandona and Dandona; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2006
Received: 01 December 2005
Accepted: 16 March 2006
Published: 16 March 2006
A recent estimate by the World Health Organization (WHO) suggests that 161 million persons worldwide have visual impairment, including 37 million blind (best-corrected visual acuity less than 3/60 in the better eye) and 124 million with visual impairment less severe than blindness (best-corrected acuity less than 6/18 to 3/60 in the better eye). This estimate is quoted widely, but because it is based on definitions using best-corrected visual acuity, uncorrected refractive error as a cause of visual impairment is excluded.
We reviewed data from population-based surveys of visual impairment worldwide published 1996 onwards that included presenting visual acuity, and estimated the proportion of visual impairment caused by uncorrected refractive error in different sub-regions of the world. We then extrapolated these data to estimate the worldwide burden of visual impairment including that caused by uncorrected refractive error.
The total number of persons with visual impairment worldwide, including that due to uncorrected refractive error, was estimated as 259 million, 61% higher than the commonly quoted WHO estimate. This includes 42 million persons with blindness defined as presenting visual acuity less than 3/60 in the better eye, and 217 million persons with less severe visual impairment level defined as presenting visual acuity less than 6/18 to 3/60 in the better eye, 14% and 75% higher, respectively, than the WHO estimates based on best-corrected visual acuity. Sensitivity analysis, taking into account the uncertainty of the proportion of visual impairment caused by refractive error, revealed that the number of persons in the world with visual impairment due to uncorrected refractive error could range from 82 to 117 million.
The actual burden of visual impairment worldwide, including that caused by uncorrected refractive error, is substantially higher than the commonly quoted WHO estimate that is based on best-corrected visual acuity. We suggest that the indicative estimate of 259 million persons with visual impairment worldwide, which includes 42 million blind with visual acuity less than 3/60 in the better eye, be used for further planning of the VISION 2020 initiative instead of the often quoted 161 million estimate that includes 37 million blind.
The World Health Organization (WHO) recently completed an impressive global review of a large number of surveys on visual impairment, and estimated that there were 161 million persons worldwide with visual impairment in the year 2002, including 37 million with blindness [1, 2]. This estimate is now commonly quoted, including by VISION 2020 – The Right to Sight, the global initiative launched jointly by the WHO and the International Agency for the Prevention of Blindness, which aims to help eliminate avoidable blindness globally by the year 2020 . This estimate was based on the definitions of visual impairment in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases (ICD), which define blindness as best-corrected visual acuity less than 3/60 or central visual field no greater than 10 degrees in the better eye, and low vision (visual impairment less severe than blindness) as best-corrected visual acuity less than 6/18 to 3/60 . These definitions of visual impairment using best-corrected visual acuity exclude uncorrected refractive error as a cause of visual impairment, thereby leading to underestimation of the total burden of visual impairment [5, 6]. We therefore attempted to estimate the global burden of visual impairment, including that caused by uncorrected refractive error, by reviewing data from published population-based surveys of visual impairment that included presenting visual acuity.
The WHO estimate of visual impairment in the different Global Burden of Disease (GBD) sub-regions, classified according to the GBD 2000 Project , for the year 2002 was used as the base estimate of visual impairment due to causes other than uncorrected refractive error, as best-corrected vision was used for this estimate . To assess the additional contribution of uncorrected refractive error to global visual impairment from published population-based surveys, we followed the guidelines for reporting meta-analysis suggested by the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Group .
The PubMed literature database  was searched in early August 2005 and again in early December 2005. The terms "blindness AND population-based survey", "blindness AND population-based study", "visual impairment AND population-based survey", "visual impairment AND population-based study", "low vision AND population-based survey" and "low vision AND population-based study" were used to locate papers on population-based surveys of visual impairment in any language published 1996 onwards, covering about a decade up to the present. This search yielded 271 publications. The abstract of each of these publications was reviewed, and the papers that were actually population-based surveys of visual impairment and documented its causes were obtained from the journals and through contact with authors if these were in the English language. If additional papers on population-based surveys of visual impairment and its causes published 1996 onwards were found in the references of these papers located through the PubMed search, these papers were also obtained, resulting in a total of 283 publications for review. The five papers from the PubMed search that were in a language other than English were assessed on the basis of their English abstracts. The aim of this literature search was to locate publications that included presenting visual acuity to define visual impairment, which would allow us to ascertain the contribution of uncorrected refractive error to visual impairment in one or both of the categories used by WHO for reporting, i.e. visual acuity less than 3/60 in the better eye and visual acuity less than 6/18 to 3/60 in the better eye.
Survey was only on children or only on persons 60 or more years of age, which would not allow estimates for the bulk of the adult population.
Definitions of visual impairment did not include either of the two visual acuity categories used by WHO for reporting, and these categories could not be derived from the categories shown.
Absence of clear number of persons who were visually impaired due to uncorrected refractive error or percentages of visual impairment due to uncorrected refractive error in either of the two visual acuity categories used by WHO.
Substantial discrepancy between the numbers/percentages mentioned in the text and tables or figures, making it impossible to determine the exact proportion of visual impairment caused by uncorrected refractive error in either of the two visual acuity categories used by WHO.
Participating sample size less than 1000 in the survey.
Data collected before 1991, which would make it too old.
Uncertain generalisability of data due to unspecified participation rate, i.e. the number of eligible sampled persons was not given.
Data from an atypical area or on an atypical population that could not be generalised to the GDB sub-region, e.g. data from an onchocerciasis endemic zone that could not be generalised to one of the African sub-regions.
If more than one survey were available from a country, and if at least one included all age groups, those with only adult age groups were excluded, unless the one with all age groups was on a population that was not easily generalisable.
Number of qualifying surveys available for Global Burden of Disease (GBD) sub-regions.
WHO member countries
Number of qualifying surveys
Algeria, Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Comoros, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Niger, Nigeria, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Togo
Botswana, Burundi, Central African Republic, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of The Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Rwanda, South Africa, Swaziland, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe
Canada, United States of America
Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Grenada, Guyana, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and The Grenadines, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela
Bolivia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, Nicaragua, Peru
Eastern Mediterranean region
Bahrain, Cyprus, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates
Egypt, Iraq, Morocco, Yemen
Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom
Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Georgia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Yugoslavia
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan
Belarus, Estonia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation, Ukraine
South-East Asia region
Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand
Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan
Western Pacific region
Australia, Japan, New Zealand
China, DPR Korea, Mongolia, Republic of Korea
Cambodia, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Myanmar, Vietnam
Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu
If one or more qualifying surveys were available for a GBD sub-region, the data from those were utilised to arrive at the best estimates for the proportion of blindness (presenting visual acuity less than 3/60 in the better eye) and less severe visual impairment (presenting visual acuity less than 6/18 to 3/60 in the better eye) caused by uncorrected refractive error. For the GBD sub-regions for which no qualifying survey was available, the most closely matching sub-region based on mortality strata as classified by GBD  was selected for which a qualifying survey was available. Data on the proportional contribution of uncorrected refractive error to blindness and less severe visual impairment from this matching selected sub-region were extrapolated to the sub-region for which no qualifying survey was available. This extrapolation either used data from the matching sub-region directly, or introduced adjustments if the population characteristics were somewhat different, as explained in the results section below.
The WHO base estimates for blindness and less severe visual impairment were then adjusted by adding the contribution of uncorrected refractive error, to arrive at estimates indicating the total number of persons with blindness and less severe visual impairment including that caused by uncorrected refractive error. As clear data regarding the contribution of uncorrected refractive error to blindness and less severe visual impairment were available from only a small number of countries, and extrapolations were used to arrive at the best estimates, sensitivity analysis was done to arrive at plausible ranges for the overall estimates. This was done by assuming that the actual contribution of uncorrected refractive error could be less or more than the proportional contribution of uncorrected refractive error to blindness and less severe visual impairment estimated from the limited available data.
Data on contribution of uncorrected refractive error to blindness and less severe visual impairment in qualifying surveys.
Year of publica-tion of study [Ref]
Number of participants in survey
Partici-pation rate of those sampled (%)
Age group (years)
Blindness* rate (%)
Percent of blindness due to un-corrected refractive error
Less severe visual impairment† rate (%)
Percent of less severe visual impairment due to uncorrected refractive error
Types of refractive error causing visual impairment‡
Unspecified refractive error, aphakia
Myopia, hyperopia, aphakia
Unspecified refractive error, aphakia
Unspecified refractive error, aphakia
Myopia, hyperopia, aphakia, pseudo-phakia, refractive error related amblyopia
Unspecified refractive error
40 or more
Unspecified refractive error, aphakia
40 or more
50 or more
Unspecified refractive error
Estimation of blindness and visual impairment including that caused by uncorrected refractive error in different GBD sub-regions.
Number blind with ICD definition* (millions)
Number having low vision with ICD definition* (millions)
Total number having visual impairment with ICD definition* (millions)
Proportion of blindness estimated due to uncorrected refractive error
Proportion of less severe visual impairment estimated due to uncorrected refractive error
Number blind including un-corrected refractive error† (millions)
Number having less severe visual impairment including uncorrected refractive error† (millions)
Total number having visual impairment including uncorrected refractive error† (millions)
Increase in number with visual impairment due to uncorrected refractive error (millions)
Sensitivity analysis was done assuming that the proportional contribution of uncorrected refractive error to blindness could be 20% less or more than our estimate of 12.3% (i.e. 9.8% to 14.7%), and that the corresponding contribution to less severe visual impairment could be 10% less or more than our estimate of 42.8% (i.e. 38.5% to 47.1%). A higher percentage variation in the plausible range for blindness was assumed, as the proportional contribution of uncorrected refractive error to blindness was smaller than that for less severe visual impairment, and smaller proportions may be associated with larger percentage variations. This sensitivity analysis revealed that the total number of persons worldwide who were visually impaired because of uncorrected refractive error could range from 82 million (4 million blind and 78 million with less severe visual impairment) to 117 million (6 million blind and 111 million with less severe visual impairment).
The obvious limitation of our estimates for the contributions of uncorrected refractive error to blindness and less severe visual impairment is the sparseness of relevant published data from around the world. Although we did an extensive PubMed search and examined cross-references from the papers located, we did not search non-English-language databases, which might have led us to overlook some relevant papers. Faced with the scanty data from the literature search, we had the option of aborting this exercise or making the best estimates using the most reasonable assumptions. As estimates of visual impairment worldwide without inclusion of uncorrected refractive error are obviously underestimates, and because frequent reference to such underestimates is not only inaccurate but can be inadvertently misleading, we felt that it was better to make initial indicative estimates of visual impairment worldwide including uncorrected error with whatever published data were available.
Our indicative estimates suggest that the number of visually impaired persons in the world is about 259 million, including 42 million blind with presenting visual acuity less than 3/60 in the better eye. This estimate includes 98 million persons with visual impairment due to uncorrected refractive error, who are not included in the WHO estimate of 161 million visually impaired persons worldwide based on the ICD visual impairment definitions that use best-corrected visual acuity . Because the contribution of uncorrected refractive error to visual impairment was uncertain due to the limited available data, we estimated the plausible range of the number of persons worldwide who were visually impaired due to uncorrected refractive error as 82 to 117 million. The original WHO estimate of visual impairment due to causes other than uncorrected refractive error does not report a plausible range because of the uncertainty that may be associated with the available data . Ideally, all worldwide estimates of visual impairment should include a plausible range based on the degree of uncertainty of the data, as is done by UNAIDS for HIV estimates .
We estimated from the available data that the proportional contribution of uncorrected refractive error to visual impairment was highest in the GBD sub-region that includes China, and lowest in the GBD sub-regions of Africa. This is consistent with the highest rates of refractive error reported for Chinese populations [23–25], and a review suggesting a relatively low contribution of uncorrected refractive error to blindness in Africa .
We have used the generic term 'uncorrected refractive error' in this paper to cover both refractive error that is not corrected at all and that which is inadequately corrected if a person is using refractive correction but is still visually impaired. It is important to point this out, as several studies from different parts of the world have suggested that in addition to completely uncorrected refractive error, inadequately corrected or under-corrected refractive error is also a significant problem [28–33].
It is important to note that refractive error is the most easily treatable cause of visual impairment, in most cases by simple spectacles. In addition, since the onset of visual impairment due to natural refractive error sets in at a younger age than the other major causes, it is responsible for a much larger number of blind years lived by a person than most other causes if left uncorrected [5, 14]. It was estimated in an Indian state that blindness due to uncorrected natural refractive errors resulted on average in over 30 years of blindness for each person as compared with 5 years of blindness due to untreated cataract for each person . Not only do our estimates indicate that uncorrected refractive error is the most common cause of visual impairment in the world, the burden it causes in the more productive younger years of life has a potentially serious adverse socio-economic impact on society. This underscores the point that visual impairment due to uncorrected refractive error cannot be overlooked in worldwide estimates, even though the currently available data regarding it are not extensive. Our indicative estimates can obviously be refined as more data become available from around the world. For now, we suggest that the indicative estimate of 259 million persons with visual impairment worldwide, which includes 42 million blind with presenting visual acuity less than 3/60 in the better eye, is more appropriate for further planning of the VISION 2020 initiative than the commonly quoted 161 million estimate including 37 million blind, which excludes uncorrected refractive error.
Even for countries for which data on the contribution of uncorrected refractive error to visual impairment were available in this assessment, clear description of the method of attributing visual impairment to uncorrected refractive error and the types of refractive error leading to visual impairment was often missing. This could have led to under- or over-estimation of the contribution of uncorrected refractive error to the visual impairment burden. For example, under-estimation could have occurred in studies that did not include proper refraction, and over-estimation in studies that included substantial index myopia (induced by development of nuclear cataract) as a refractive error cause of visual impairment – the correct cause in such cases would be cataract. This situation points to the need to develop a standardised system for assessing the contribution of uncorrected refractive error to visual impairment in population-based studies, including distinguishing index myopia from natural refractive error and documentation of refractive error-related amblyopia .
It has to be kept in mind that the visual impairment definitions are currently based on distance visual acuity. A subset of the persons who have poor distance vision due to uncorrected refractive error, and qualify as visually impaired, may have good near vision. The difference between the impact on quality of life due to visual impairment caused by uncorrected refractive error that is associated with good near vision, and that due to visual impairment causing poor vision both at distance and near, needs to be better understood. On the other hand, it should also be noted that uncorrected presbyopia, refractive error due to aging that causes difficulty in seeing at near which usually starts progressing around 40 years of age, also causes disability. However, at this stage, the data available are not adequate to enable presbyopia-related visual impairment to be included in the definitions of visual impairment. It would be useful for such data to become available over a period of time.
We recommend that all population-based assessments of blindness and less severe visual impairment be based on presenting visual acuity so that uncorrected refractive error as a cause is not missed. In addition, if standardised requirements for reporting of visual impairment and its causes from population-based surveys were developed and implemented through a combined effort of journal editors, this would facilitate more efficient utilisation of future data for systematic tracking of visual impairment around the world.
Although data on the contribution of uncorrected refractive error to visual impairment worldwide are scanty, our indicative estimate based on the available data suggests that the total number of persons with visual impairment in the world, who have presenting visual acuity less than 6/18 in the better eye, is about 259 million. This includes 42 million blind persons with presenting visual acuity less than 3/60 in the better eye and 217 million with less severe visual impairment of presenting visual acuity less than 6/18 to 3/60 in the better eye. This estimate of visually impaired persons is 61% higher than the 161 million estimate recently made by WHO on the basis of best-corrected visual acuity, which excluded visual impairment caused by uncorrected refractive error. Our estimate of 98 million persons in the world with visual impairment due to uncorrected refractive error makes this the largest cause of visual impairment. Estimates of visual impairment that include uncorrected refractive error must be used to avoid misleading underestimates from becoming the basis of planning for visual impairment reduction globally. We therefore suggest that the indicative estimate of 259 million persons in the world with visual impairment, which includes 42 million blind with visual acuity less than 3/60 in the better eye, be used for further planning of the VISION 2020 initiative instead of the commonly quoted recent WHO estimate of 161 million, which includes 37 million blind.
- Resnikoff S, Pascolini D, Etya'ale D, Kocur I, Pararajasegaram R, Pokharel GP, Mariotti SP: Global data on visual impairment in the year 2002. Bull World Health Organ. 2004, 82: 844-851.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Pascolini D, Mariotti SP, Pokharel GP, Pararajasegaram R, Etya'ale D, Negrel AD, Resnikoff S: 2002 global update of available data on visual impairment: a compilation of population-based prevalence studies. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2004, 11: 67-115. 10.1076/opep.188.8.131.52158.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- VISION 2020 – The Right to Sight. [http://www.v2020.org/right_to_sight/index.asp]
- World Health Organization: International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems. 10th revision. Current version. Version for. 2003, [http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/] . Chapter VII. H54. Blindness and low visionGoogle Scholar
- Dandona R, Dandona L: Refractive error blindness. Bull World Health Organ. 2001, 79: 237-243.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Dandona L, Foster A: Patterns of blindness. Duane's Clinical Ophthalmology. Edited by: Tasman W, Jaeger EA. 2002, Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Chapter 53.Google Scholar
- Murray CJL, Lopez AD, Mathers CD, Stein C: The Global Burden of Disease 2000 project: aims, methods and data sources. Global Programme on Evidence for Health Policy Discussion Paper No. 36. 2001, Geneva: World Health Organization, [http://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper36.pdf]Google Scholar
- Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, Moher D, Becker BJ, Sipe TA, Thacker SB: Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) Group: Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. JAMA. 2000, 283: 2008-2012. 10.1001/jama.283.15.2008.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, USA: PubMed. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/]
- Zerihun N, Mabey D: Blindness and low vision in Jimma Zone, Ethiopia: results of a population-based survey. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 1997, 4: 19-26.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Mansour AM, Kassak K, Chaya M, Hourani T, Sibai A, Alameddine MN: National survey of blindness and low vision in Lebanon. Br J Ophthalmol. 1997, 81: 905-906.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Negrel AD, Minassian DC, Sayek F: Blindness and low vision in southeast Turkey. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 1996, 3: 127-134.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Zainal M, Ismail SM, Ropilah AR, Elias H, Arumugam G, Alias D, Fathilah J, Lim TO, Ding LM, Goh PP: Prevalence of blindness and low vision in Malaysian population: results from the National Eye Survey 1996. Br J Ophthalmol. 2002, 86: 951-956. 10.1136/bjo.86.9.951.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Dandona L, Dandona R, Srinivas M, Giridhar P, Vilas K, Prasad MN, John RK, McCarty CA, Rao GN: Blindness in the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2001, 42: 908-916.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Dandona R, Dandona L, Srinivas M, Giridhar P, Prasad MN, Vilas K, McCarty CA, Rao GN: Moderate visual impairment in India: the Andhra Pradesh Eye Disease Study. Br J Ophthalmol. 2002, 86: 373-377. 10.1136/bjo.86.4.373.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Awan HR, Ihsan T: Prevalence of visual impairment and eye diseases in Afghan refugees in Pakistan. East Mediterr Health J. 1998, 4: 560-566.Google Scholar
- Ahmad K, Khan MD, Qureshi MB, Munami S, Shah RA, Rasheed H, Jamali B, Baluch A, Khan MA: Prevalence and causes of blindness and low vision in a rural setting in Pakistan. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2005, 12: 19-23. 10.1080/09286580490921304.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- VanNewkirk MR, Weih L, McCarty CA, Taylor HR: Cause-specific prevalence of bilateral visual impairment in Victoria, Australia: the Visual Impairment Project. Ophthalmology. 2001, 108: 960-967. 10.1016/S0161-6420(01)00554-1.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Li S, Xu J, He M, Wu K, Munoz SR, Ellwein LB: A survey of blindness and cataract surgery in Doumen County, China. Ophthalmology. 1999, 106: 1602-1608. 10.1016/S0161-6420(99)90459-1.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- United Nations Population Division: World Population Prospects: The 2002 Revision. 2003, New York: United NationsGoogle Scholar
- Faal H, Minassian DC, Dolin PJ, Mohamed AA, Ajewole J, Johnson GJ: Evaluation of a national eye care programme: re-survey after 10 years. Br J Ophthalmol. 2000, 84: 948-951. 10.1136/bjo.84.9.948.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Dandona R, Dandona L: Childhood blindness in India: a population-based perspective. Br J Ophthalmol. 2003, 87: 263-265. 10.1136/bjo.87.3.263.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Dandona L, Dandona R: Uncorrected refractive error. Basic and Clinical Science Course: International Ophthalmology. 2002, San Francisco: American Academy of OphthalmologyGoogle Scholar
- Zhao J, Pan X, Sui R, Munoz SR, Sperduto RD, Ellwein LB: Refractive Error Study in Children: results from Shunyi District, China. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000, 129: 427-435. 10.1016/S0002-9394(99)00452-3.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- He M, Zeng J, Liu Y, Xu J, Pokharel GP, Ellwein LB: Refractive error and visual impairment in urban children in southern China. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004, 45: 793-799. 10.1167/iovs.03-1051.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS): 2004 Report on the Global AIDS Epidemic. 2004, Geneva: UNAIDSGoogle Scholar
- Lewallen S, Courtright P: Blindness in Africa: present situation and future needs. Br J Ophthalmol. 2001, 85: 897-903. 10.1136/bjo.85.8.897.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Liou HL, McCarty CA, Jin CL, Taylor HR: Prevalence and predictors of undercorrected refractive errors in the Victorian population. Am J Ophthalmol. 1999, 127: 590-596. 10.1016/S0002-9394(98)00449-8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Dandona R, Dandona L, Kovai V, Giridhar P, Prasad MN, Srinivas M: Population-based study of spectacles use in southern India. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2002, 50: 145-155.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Munoz B, West SK, Rodriguez J, Sanchez R, Broman AT, Snyder R, Klein R: Blindness, visual impairment and the problem of uncorrected refractive error in a Mexican-American population: Proyecto VER. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002, 43: 608-614.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Thiagalingam S, Cumming RG, Mitchell P: Factors associated with undercorrected refractive errors in an older population: the Blue Mountains Eye Study. Br J Ophthalmol. 2002, 86: 1041-1045. 10.1136/bjo.86.9.1041.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Bourne RR, Dineen BP, Huq DM, Ali SM, Johnson GJ: Correction of refractive error in the adult population of Bangladesh: meeting the unmet need. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004, 45: 410-417. 10.1167/iovs.03-0129.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Saw SM, Foster PJ, Gazzard G, Friedman D, Hee J, Seah S: Undercorrected refractive error in Singaporean Chinese adults: the Tanjong Pagar survey. Ophthalmology. 2004, 111: 2168-2174. 10.1016/j.ophtha.2004.05.032.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/4/6/prepub
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.