Skip to main content

Table 3 Comparative analysis for results and criteria of URE, UREN and visual impairment between our and others populational surveys

From: Influence of uncorrected refractive error and unmet refractive error on visual impairment in a Brazilian population

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 - - - - - -
  1. Note: *Ferraz et al.,2014 correspond to the present study. VA: 6/120 Sn = 20/400 Sn = 1.3 logMAR; 6/60 Sn = 20/200 Sn = 1.0 logMAR; 6/18 Sn = 20/60 Sn = 0.5 logMAR; 20/40 Sn = 0.3 logMAR; 6/9 Sn = 20/30 Sn = 0.18 logMAR.