4.1 Article

Refractive Error among the Elderly in Rural Southern Harbin, China

Journal

OPHTHALMIC EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 16, Issue 6, Pages 388-394

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.3109/09286580903312285

Keywords

Refractive error; elderly; rural areas; population-based survey

Categories

Funding

  1. Nature Science Foundation of Heilongjiang Province, China [D2007-51]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To estimate the prevalence and associated factors of refractive errors among the elderly in a rural area of Southern Harbin, China. Methods: Five thousand and fifty seven subjects (age 50 years) were enumerated for a population-based study. All participants underwent complete ophthalmic evaluation. Refraction was performed by ophthalmic personnel trained in the study procedures. Myopia was defined as spherical equivalent worse than -0.50 diopters (D) and hyperopia as spherical equivalent worse than +0.50 D. Astigmatism was defined as a cylindrical error worse than 0.75D. Association of refractive errors with age, sex, and education were analyzed. Results: Of the 5,057 responders (91.0%), 4,979 were eligible. The mean age was 60.5 (range 50-96) years old. The prevalence of myopia was 9.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.5-10.1) and of hyperopia was 8.9% (959% CI, 7.9-9.5). Astigmatism was evident in 7.6% of the subjects. Myopia, hyperopia and astigmatism increased with increasing age (p<0.001, respectively). Myopia and astigmatism were more common in males, whereas hyperopia was more common in females. We also found that prevalence of refractive error we as associated with education. Myopia was more common in those with higher degrees of education, whereas hyperopia and astigmatism were more common in those with no formal education. Conclusions: This report has provided details of the refractive status in a rural population of Harbin. The prevalence of refractive errors in this population is lower than those reported in other regions of the world.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available