Table 3 Comparative analysis for results and criteria of URE, UREN and visual impairment between our and others populational surveys
SURVEY (%) | URE | Criteria | UREN | Criteria | Low vision | Criteria | Blind | Criteria |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
*Ferraz et al., 2014 São Paulo State, Brazil | 13.8 | Dif BCVA ≥ 0.15 - NCVA ≥ 0.15 | 6.5 | Dif BCVA > 0.5 - NCVA > 0.5) | 9.8 | 1.3 ≤ VA < 0.5 | 4.1 | VA < 1.3 |
Ramke et al., 2012 [19] Timor-Leste, Afrique | 3.7 | NCVA < 6/18 ≥ 6/18 with pinhole | 9.6 | VA < 20/40 Enhancement 2 lines | - | - | - | - |
Brian et al., 2011 [18] Figi, Japan | 10.3 | Presenting corrected vision ≥ 6/18 | 4.8 | |||||
Uribe et al., 2011 [9] Tucson/Nogales, USA | 22.57 | Enhancement 2 lines | ||||||
Barnes et al., 2011 [21] Ta’u Island, Samoa, USA | - | - | - | - | 10.5 | 6/60 ≤ VA < 6/18 | 4.8 | VA < 6/60 |
Schellini et al., 2009 [12] Botucatu Eye Study, Brazil | - | - | 5.5 | Dif BCVA ≥ 20/60 -NCVA ≥ 20/60) | 5.2 | 20/400 ≤ VA < 20/60 | 2.2 | VA <20/400 |
Varma et al., 2008 [16] La Puente, California | 15.1 | Enhancement 2 lines | 8.9 | Dif BCVA ≥ 20/40 - NCVA ≥ 20/40) | - | - | - | - |
Ntim-Amponsah, 2007 [15] Gana, Afrique | 11.9 | Enhancement 2 lines | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Ramke et al., 2007 [17] Timor-Leste, Afrique | - | - | 11.7 | Dif BCVA ≥ 6/18 - NCVA ≥ 6/18) | - | 6/60 ≤ VA < 6/18 | - | VA < 6/60 |
Dandona et al., 2002 [20] Andhra Pradesh, Índia | - | - | 4.49 | Dif BCVA ≥ 6/12 - NCVA ≥ 6/12) | - | VA < 6/12 | - | - |
Thiagalingam et al., 2002 [11] Blue Montains, Australia | 10.2 | VA < 6/9 Enhancement 2 lines | - | - | - | - | - | - |