0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Epidemiology |

Diabetes Mellitus and Visual Impairment:  National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999-2004 FREE

Xinzhi Zhang, MD, PhD; Edward W. Gregg, PhD; Yiling J. Cheng, MD, PhD; Theodore J. Thompson, MS; Linda S. Geiss, MA; Michael R. Duenas, OD; Jinan B. Saaddine, MD, MPH
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Division of Diabetes Translation, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.


Arch Ophthalmol. 2008;126(10):1421-1427. doi:10.1001/archopht.126.10.1421.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Objective  To examine the prevalence and correlates of visual impairment (VI) among US adults with and without diabetes mellitus.

Methods  Using National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys conducted during 1999-2004, we estimated the prevalence of presenting (correctable or uncorrectable), correctable, and uncorrectable VI among Americans 20 years or older with and without diabetes. Data were weighted to make estimates representative of the US civilian noninstitutionalized population. We used multivariate logistic regression to calculate odds ratios and corresponding 95% confidence intervals.

Results  Approximately 11.0% of US adults with diabetes had some form of VI (3.8% uncorrectable and 7.2% correctable). Among those without diabetes, 5.9% had some form of VI (1.4% uncorrectable and 4.5% correctable). People with diabetes were more likely to have uncorrectable VI than those without diabetes, even after controlling for selected other factors (P < .05). Our findings also suggest a strong association between VI (correctable and uncorrectable) and older age, member of racial/ethnic minorities, lower income, and lack of health insurance, all independent of diabetes status (P < .05).

Conclusions  Vision loss is more common in people with diabetes than in people without diabetes. Diverse public health strategies are needed to reduce the burden of both correctable and uncorrectable VI.

Figures in this Article

In 2005, an estimated 14.6 million Americans had diagnosed diabetes mellitus, and an additional 6.2 million had undiagnosed diabetes.1 By 2050, it is projected that the number of individuals with diagnosed diabetes in the United States will increase to 48.3 million.2 In the meantime, a previous study, based on National Health Interview Survey data, suggested that visual impairment (VI) continued to be a major public health issue for the US population.3 Diabetic retinopathy, one of the most common microvascular complications of diabetes, is considered to be one of the major causes of blindness and low vision.4,5 Even though some evidence suggests that intense glucose and blood pressure control has resulted in a reduction in the cumulative incidence of proliferative retinopathy,6 diabetes may increase the risk of VI due to other ocular conditions, such as cataract79 and glaucoma.10,11 In addition, VI due to refractive error is common among people with diabetes.12,13

We analyzed data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), a population-based national sample that was collected during 1999-2004, to describe the level of VI among people with and without diabetes and to examine the relationship of VI to diabetes mellitus, as well as to other risk factors. Previous studies on VI and diabetes have either used data from selected populations, limited to small areas,14,15 or self-reported VI outcomes.16

Detailed information on NHANES data and its vision component has been shown earlier.13 In brief, NHANES is an ongoing series of cross-sectional surveys on health and nutrition that are conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and is designed to be nationally representative of the noninstitutionalized US civilian population.17 All of the surveys include a household interview followed by a detailed physical examination. The survey was institutional review board approved and the sampled population was interviewed and examined with informed consent. For the 1999-2004 NHANES surveys, the physical examination also included a vision examination. Distance visual acuity (VA) was measured before and after an objective autorefraction test (optical correction), using the ARK-760 (Nidek Co Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) autorefractor containing built-in VA charts. Visual acuity was measured with whatever forms of current correction (eg, glasses or contact lenses) that the participant might have worn at the time of the examination. Only those eyes with a presenting VA of 20/30 or worse were administered the autorefraction test.

In the NHANES surveys conducted during 1999-2004, the combined household interview response rate was approximately 82% and the medical examination response rate was approximately 77%. Persons who were completely blind, who were unable to see in both eyes, or who had a severe infection in one or both eyes were excluded from the vision examination. Of the 15 332 sampled adults 20 years and older who received vision examination, 22 were excluded because of lack of diabetes information or because their diabetes was diagnosed only during pregnancy. Another 2306 adults for whom presenting VA values were missing were excluded from the study. We compared VA before and after an objective autorefraction test among 1237 adults with diabetes and 11 767 without diabetes.

ASSESSMENT OF VI

The definitions of VI that we used, similar to those that are used in most domestic and international population-based studies,1822 appear in Table 1. We considered 3 classes of VI: presenting VI (any VI, correctable or uncorrectable), uncorrectable VI, and correctable VI. Presenting VI was defined as presenting VA worse than 20/40 in the better-seeing eye before an objective autorefraction test. Uncorrectable VI was defined as VA worse than 20/40 in the better-seeing eye after an objective autorefraction test. Correctable VI (ie, VI due to refractive error) was defined as VA worse than 20/40 in the better-seeing eye before an objective autorefraction test that could be improved to normal (VA≥20/40) after an objective autorefraction test. We also stratified each class into moderate impairment (20/200<VA<20/40) and severe impairment (VA≤20/200).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Definitions of Classes of VI in the Study
DIABETES AND OTHER VARIABLES

A respondent was considered to have diabetes if he or she had a self-reported previous diagnosis of the disease (excluding gestational diabetes mellitus). Age was categorized as 20 to 64 years and 65 years and older. Race/ethnicity was categorized as non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, Mexican American, and other (including those who selected multiple races and non–Mexican American Hispanic). Other factors included in the analysis were sex, marital status, educational level (<high school, high school, and >high school), income (poverty income ratio<1 [ie, below the poverty threshold], 1 to <2, and ≥2), health insurance, high blood pressure, smoking, and body mass index (BMI) (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared). High blood pressure affects the development of age-related macular degeneration,23 diabetic retinopathy,24,25 and other retinal vascular diseases.26 We defined high blood pressure as an average (based on 4 readings) systolic blood pressure of 140 mm Hg or higher or an average diastolic blood pressure of 90 mm Hg or higher. Smoking is associated with age-related macular degeneration,23,2729 cataract,3032 and diabetic retinopathy.15,33 We defined smoking status as current smoker, previous smoker, and those who never smoked. We controlled for BMI because some of the studies suggested a possible association between BMI and several ocular conditions, such as age-related maculopathy3437 and cataract.38,39 We divided respondents into 3 groups based on their BMI: normal/underweight (<25), overweight (25 to <30), and obese (≥30).

STATISTICAL ANALYSES

We estimated the prevalence of presenting, uncorrectable, and correctable VI among the US noninstitutionalized population with and without diabetes mellitus aged 20 years and older. All of the analyses were weighted to make estimates that were representative of the population. We used SAS version 9.1 (SAS Institute, Inc, Cary, North Carolina) for data management and SUDAAN version 9.0 (Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina) to adjust for the complex design of the sample and for nonresponse. The relationship of VI to diabetes, as well as to other risk factors, was explored using multivariate logistic regression; we calculated odds ratios (ORs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Associations between VI and diabetes were considered to be significant if the P value for testing the null hypothesis of no association was <.05.

Table 2 shows the characteristics of the respondents with and without diabetes. The average age among the respondents with diabetes was 59 years. The average age among those without diabetes was 45 years. Non-Hispanic black individuals were more prevalent in the populations with diabetes than among those without diabetes. Adults with diabetes were more likely to have a lower educational level and less income than those without diabetes. There were fewer current smokers and more former smokers among people with diabetes. In addition, people with diabetes were more likely to be obese and to have higher blood pressure.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Characteristics of the Study Population by Self-reported Diabetes Mellitus Status From the 1999-2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey

The overall prevalence of presenting VI among the participants with diabetes was 11.0% (moderate, 9.7% and severe, 1.4%); among those without diabetes, the prevalence was 5.9% (5.1% and 0.9%, respectively) (Figure 1). After optical correction (objective autorefraction test), the prevalence of uncorrectable VI was 3.8% among the adults with diabetes (moderate, 2.9% and severe, 1.0%) and 1.4% among those without diabetes (1.2% and 0.3%, respectively). Overall, the prevalence of correctable VI among the respondents with diabetes was 7.2% (95% CI, 5.5%-9.4%) and 4.5% (95% CI, 4.2%-4.9%) among those without diabetes.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Estimated prevalence of visual impairment (VI) among American adults by self-reported diabetes mellitus (DM). Presenting VI was defined as a presenting visual acuity (VA) worse than 20/40 in the better-seeing eye before an objective autorefraction test. Uncorrectable VI was defined as VA worse than 20/40 in the better-seeing eye after an objective autorefraction test. Correctable VI was defined as VA worse than 20/40 in the better-seeing eye before an objective autorefraction test that could be improved to normal (VA≥20/40) after an objective autorefraction test. Estimated prevalence of correctable severe impairment among people with diabetes has a relative standard error higher than 30% and is considered to be statistically unreliable. NDM indicates no diabetes mellitus; S, severe; and M, moderate. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.

Graphic Jump Location

People with diabetes were more likely to have presenting VI across all age groups, except among the oldest of the old group (≥80 years); in this age group, the prevalence was similar in both groups (Figure 2). After the age of 40 years, the prevalence of uncorrectable VI increased with age and people with diabetes were more likely to have uncorrectable VI than those without diabetes. The difference between people with and without diabetes increased as people became older until they reached the oldest of the old group. People with diabetes also had a higher prevalence of correctable VI across different age groups except the oldest of old group. The difference between people with and without diabetes of correctable VI was largest among the younger age groups.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Estimated age-specific prevalence of visual impairment (VI) among American adults by self-reported diabetes mellitus (DM). The figure does not have the same scale to best demonstrate the difference between DM and no diabetes mellitus (NDM).

Graphic Jump Location

After controlling for age, people with diabetes were more likely to have correctable and uncorrectable VI than people without diabetes (Table 3). If we added into the model other confounders, especially socioeconomic factors and ocular risk factors, diabetes was no longer associated significantly with correctable VI (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.77-1.81). However, adults with diabetes were still more likely to have uncorrectable VI than those without diabetes, even after controlling all other factors (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.01-2.20).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Multivariate Logistic Regression of VI and Self-reported DM Among American Adults From the 1999-2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveya

As shown in Table 3, both uncorrectable and correctable VIs were associated independently with older age, lower income, and no health insurance after controlling for all other factors. The impact of aging on uncorrectable VI was much greater than that on correctable VI. People with less education were more likely to have uncorrectable VI, especially those with less than a high school education (OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.30-2.68). Non-Hispanic black individuals were more likely to have uncorrectable VI than non-Hispanic white individuals (OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.08-2.29). In addition, non-Hispanic black individuals and Mexican American individuals had higher odds of having correctable VI than non-Hispanic white individuals (OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.41-2.33 and OR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.36-2.39, respectively). There were no significant differences in correctable and uncorrectable VI by sex or marital status. We also tested interaction effects including interaction of age and diabetes on VI but found no significant effects.

Correctable, as well as uncorrectable, VI can increase the likelihood of injury and lead to lower quality of life.4047 Our findings suggest that people with diabetes had a 60% and 170% higher prevalence of correctable and uncorrectable VI, respectively, than those without diabetes. The risk of uncorrectable VI remained associated significantly with diabetes, even after controlling for age, sex, marital status, race/ethnicity, educational level, income, health insurance, high blood pressure, smoking, and BMI. However, we did not find a statistically significant association between correctable VI and diabetes after adjusting for all other selected factors.

Based on the 2000 US Census and population-based studies in the United States, Australia, and Europe, the Eye Disease Prevalence Research Group (EDPRG), a group of principal investigators of several population-based vision studies, estimated that 2.76% (moderate, 1.98% and severe, 0.78%) of Americans 40 years and older had uncorrectable VI, including blindness and low vision.5 In our study, we found that uncorrectable VI increased with age, especially after the age of 40 years. The prevalence of uncorrectable VI among US adults with diabetes 20 years and older was 3.8% (moderate, 2.9% and severe, 1.0%) and was 1.4% among those without diabetes (moderate, 1.2% and severe, 0.3%). Our estimates are lower than the EDPRG estimate, even if we only include those 40 years and older (2.1% [moderate, 1.7% and severe, 0.4%]); this is possibly because we only included the community-dwelling population and excluded those who were unable to see.

Diabetic retinopathy affects approximately 3.4% of US adults 40 years and older and 0.75% have vision-threatening retinopathy.48 Moreover, many cases of diabetic retinopathy are asymptomatic in their early stages. Results from one study have indicated that retinopathy may, under current diagnostic criteria, occur in the prediabetic stage.49 Our findings indicated an independent association between diabetes and uncorrectable VI. As a result, early diagnosis and the prompt treatment of diabetes mellitus is extremely important to reduce the incidence of uncorrectable VI due to diabetic retinopathy and other ocular conditions that are associated with diabetes. To prevent and reduce uncorrectable VI among people with diabetes, good glycemic control and good blood pressure control are necessary.50 Moreover, early detection and the treatment of diabetic retinopathy through dilated eye examination and photocoagulation could prevent and delay visual loss from this microvascular complication.

While most of the population-based studies emphasize uncorrectable VI, a few have focused on correctable VI among children and adults.18,21,22,5154 The Baltimore Eye Survey22 reported that more than 50% of the subjects improved their presenting vision after refractive correction. The Proyecto VER (Vision Evaluation and Research) Study53 found that uncorrected refractive error accounted for 73% of the impaired VA among Mexican American individuals 40 years and older. Similar findings were reported in the United Kingdom,45 India,55 and Australia.5658 Recently, the National Eye Institute estimated the prevalence and cost of correctable VI of the general population and emphasized the importance of correcting VI due to refractive error in improving safety and quality of life.13,59 The Blue Mountains Eye Study56 also found a lower prevalence of presenting VI in their second cross-sectional phase, which indicated a possible impact of public education and community awareness. Consistent with previous studies, our findings suggest that a large proportion of people with diabetes (65%) can improve their presenting vision through the provision of a simple accurate spectacle prescription (eg, glasses or contact lenses). In particular, we found that the ratio of correctable VI vs uncorrectable VI was much higher among the younger population with diabetes (<40 years), which highlights the importance of reducing correctable VI through diverse public health interventions that are focused on different groups in need.

Our results showed that the prevalence difference of correctable VI between adults with and without diabetes is not mainly due to age. The strength of the association between correctable VI and diabetes was reduced by adjusting for other socioeconomic and ocular risk factors. These findings are consistent with previous research from Proyecto VER53 and the Blue Mountains Eye Study,56 which suggested that the socioeconomic factors, probable markers of limited access to health care services, were associated with correctable VI. The 1994 Robert Wood Johnson Foundation National Access to Care Survey60 suggested that the financial barrier (could not afford glasses or no insurance) was the main reason that people reported an unmet need for eyeglasses.

The addition of VA and refractive error assessment, in concert with dilated fundus examination, may further contribute to improved vision outcomes for individuals with diabetes. Our findings underscore the importance of the use of an annual comprehensive eye examination (CEE) for people with diabetes as recommended by the American Diabetes Association,61 the American Optometric Association,62 and the American Academy of Ophthalmology.63 A regular CEE will include medical and ocular history, VA measurement (refraction if needed), intraocular pressure measurement, and the examination of the vitreous humor, retina, and optic nerve head. An annual CEE will help to identify the risk factors for uncorrectable VI, detect diabetic retinopathy and other ocular conditions at their early stages, ensure appropriate and continuous eye care, and thus prevent or delay permanent vision loss; a CEE will also help to find out and correct VI due to refractive error and, therefore, improve the individual's visual ability and quality of life. However, given that a high prevalence of VI and low use of recommended eye care services64,65 exist among people with diabetes, it is important to enhance vision screening66,67 and public health education programs68 to identify high-risk populations and educate the public in the need for ocular correction and eye care.

Our study is subject to several limitations. First, the institutionalized population (eg, nursing home) was not included in NHANES. This may result in possible underestimates of VI prevalence, as suggested by the Blue Mountains Eye Study.69 Second, because the participants who were completely blind, unable to see in both eyes (estimates not available), or had a severe infection in one or both eyes (n = 8) were excluded from vision examination, there is further underestimation in the prevalence estimates of VI. Third, only objective refraction (objective autorefraction test) was measured and used to support final visual improvement. Because there is no subjective refinement, VA estimates after an objective autorefraction test may not be considered as “best corrected,”70 resulting in a possible underestimate to correctable VI. Fourth, although presenting VA was tested with current usual correction, if available, some people may not have worn their usual correction. As a result, the prevalence of correctable VI could be overestimated. Fifth, although we used data that were collected in 6 years, the sample size in some age groups was small. Estimates having a relative standard error higher than 30% were considered to be statistically unreliable (eg, prevalence of correctable severe VI among people with diabetes) and should be interpreted with extreme caution. Finally, although previous studies have suggested that a self-report of physician-diagnosed diabetes is accurate and valid,7173 our reliance on self-reported diabetes status may underestimate the impact of diabetes on VI because many individuals with undetected hyperglycemia are missed.74

As the US population ages and changes demographically, the social and economic burden of VI may increase dramatically. The high prevalence of VI among people with diabetes indicates a need for diverse public health strategies to reduce the burden of both correctable and uncorrectable VI. It is important to identify and pursue ways to increase access to eye care for everyone and to correct VI, where possible, to diminish morbidity and mortality due to impaired vision.

Correspondence: Xinzhi Zhang, MD, PhD, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Hwy, NE (K-10), Atlanta, GA 30341-3727 (xzhang4@cdc.gov).

Submitted for Publication: October 4, 2007; final revision received December 4, 2007; accepted January 16, 2008.

Financial Disclosure: None reported.

Disclaimer: The findings and conclusions in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National diabetes fact sheet: general information and national estimates on diabetes in the United States, 2005. http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pubs/factsheet05.htm. Accessed November 19, 2006
Narayan  KMBoyle  JPGeiss  LSSaaddine  JBThompson  TJ Impact of recent increase in incidence on future diabetes burden: US, 2005 Diabetes Care 2006;29 (9) 2114- 2116
PubMed Link to Article
Lee  DJGomez-Marin  OLam  BLZheng  DDJane  DM Trends in visual acuity impairment in US adults: the 1986-1995 National Health Interview Survey. Arch Ophthalmol 2004;122 (4) 506- 509
PubMed Link to Article
Fong  DSAiello  LGardner  TW  et al. American Diabetes Association, Retinopathy in diabetes. Diabetes Care 2004;27 ((suppl 1)) S84- S87
PubMed Link to Article
Congdon  NO'Colmain  BKlaver  CC  et al. Eye Diseases Prevalence Research Group, Causes and prevalence of visual impairment among adults in the United States. Arch Ophthalmol 2004;122 (4) 477- 485
PubMed Link to Article
Hovind  PTarnow  LRossing  K  et al.  Decreasing incidence of severe diabetic microangiopathy in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2003;26 (4) 1258- 1264
PubMed Link to Article
Klein  BEKlein  RLee  KE Diabetes, cardiovascular disease, selected cardiovascular disease risk factors, and the 5-year incidence of age-related cataract and progression of lens opacities: the Beaver Dam Eye Study. Am J Ophthalmol 1998;126 (6) 782- 790
PubMed Link to Article
Leske  MCWu  SYHennis  AConnell  AMHyman  LSchachat  A Diabetes, hypertension, and central obesity as cataract risk factors in a black population: the Barbados Eye Study. Ophthalmology 1999;106 (1) 35- 41
PubMed Link to Article
Rowe  NGMitchell  PGCumming  RGWans  JJ Diabetes, fasting blood glucose and age-related cataract: the Blue Mountains Eye Study. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2000;7 (2) 103- 114
PubMed Link to Article
Klein  BEKlein  RJensen  SC Open-angle glaucoma and older-onset diabetes: the Beaver Dam Eye Study. Ophthalmology 1994;101 (7) 1173- 1177
PubMed Link to Article
Mitchell  PSmith  WChey  THealey  PR Open-angle glaucoma and diabetes: the Blue Mountains Eye Study, Australia. Ophthalmology 1997;104 (4) 712- 718
PubMed Link to Article
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Correctable visual impairment among persons with diabetes—United States, 1999-2004. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2006;55 (43) 1169- 1172
PubMed
Vitale  SCotch  MFSperduto  RD Prevalence of visual impairment in the United States. JAMA 2006;295 (18) 2158- 2163
PubMed Link to Article
Klein  RKlein  BEMoss  SE Visual impairment in diabetes. Ophthalmology 1984;91 (1) 1- 9
PubMed Link to Article
Moss  SEKlein  RKlein  BE The 14-year incidence of visual loss in a diabetic population. Ophthalmology 1998;105 (6) 998- 1003
PubMed Link to Article
Saaddine  JBNarayan  KMEngelgau  MMAubert  REKlein  RBeckles  GL Prevalence of self-rated visual impairment among adults with diabetes. Am J Public Health 1999;89 (8) 1200- 1205
PubMed Link to Article
National Center for Health Statistics, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey: NHANES 1999-2004. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm. Accessed November 2006
Attebo  KMitchell  PSmith  W Visual acuity and the causes of visual loss in Australia: the Blue Mountains Eye Study. Ophthalmology 1996;103 (3) 357- 364
PubMed Link to Article
Hyman  LWu  SYConnell  AM  et al.  Prevalence and causes of visual impairment in the Barbados Eye Study. Ophthalmology 2001;108 (10) 1751- 1756
PubMed Link to Article
Klaver  CCWolfs  RCVingerling  JRHofman  Ade Jong  PT Age-specific prevalence and causes of blindness and visual impairment in an older population: the Rotterdam Study. Arch Ophthalmol 1998;116 (5) 653- 658
PubMed Link to Article
Klein  RKein  BELinton  KLDeMets  DL The Beaver Dam Eye Study: visual acuity. Ophthalmology 1991;98 (8) 1310- 1315
PubMed Link to Article
Tielsch  JMSommer  AWitt  KKatz  JRoyall  RM Blindness and visual impairment in an American urban population: the Baltimore Eye Survey. Arch Ophthalmol 1990;108 (2) 286- 290
PubMed Link to Article
Age-Related Eye Disease Study Research Group, Risk factors associated with age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology 2000;107 (12) 2224- 2232
PubMed Link to Article
Adler  AIStratton  IMNeil  HA  et al.  Association of systolic blood pressure with macrovascular and microvascular complications of type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 36): prospective observational study. BMJ 2000;321 (7258) 412- 419
PubMed Link to Article
UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group, Tight blood pressure control and risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 38. BMJ 1998;317 (7160) 703- 713
PubMed Link to Article
Wong  TYMitchell  P The eye in hypertension [published correction appears in Lancet. 2007;369(9579):2078]. Lancet 2007;369 (9559) 425- 435
PubMed Link to Article
Cheng  ACPang  CPLeung  ATChua  JKFan  DSLam  DS The association between cigarette smoking and ocular diseases. Hong Kong Med J 2000;6 (2) 195- 202
PubMed
Klein  RKlein  BETomany  SCMoss  SE Ten-year incidence of age-related maculopathy and smoking and drinking: the Beaver Dam Eye Study. Am J Epidemiol 2002;156 (7) 589- 598
PubMed Link to Article
Smith  WAssink  JKlein  R  et al.  Risk factors for age-related macular degeneration: pooled findings from three continents. Ophthalmology 2001;108 (4) 697- 704
PubMed Link to Article
Christen  WGGlynn  RJAjani  UA  et al.  Smoking cessation and risk of age-related cataract in men. JAMA 2000;284 (6) 713- 716
PubMed Link to Article
Weintraub  JMWillett  WCRosner  BColditz  GASeddon  JMHankinson  SE Smoking cessation and risk of cataract extraction among US women and men. Am J Epidemiol 2002;155 (1) 72- 79
PubMed Link to Article
West  SMunoz  BEmmett  EATaylor  HR Cigarette smoking and risk of nuclear cataracts. Arch Ophthalmol 1989;107 (8) 1166- 1169
PubMed Link to Article
Stratton  IMKohner  EMAldington  SJ  et al.  UKPDS 50: risk factors for incidence and progression of retinopathy in type II diabetes over 6 years from diagnosis. Diabetologia 2001;44 (2) 156- 163
PubMed Link to Article
Schaumberg  DAChristen  WGHankinson  SEGlynn  RJ Body mass index and the incidence of visually significant age-related maculopathy in men. Arch Ophthalmol 2001;119 (9) 1259- 1264
PubMed Link to Article
Seddon  JMCote  JDavis  NRosner  B Progression of age-related macular degeneration: association with body mass index, waist circumference, and waist-hip ratio. Arch Ophthalmol 2003;121 (6) 785- 792
PubMed Link to Article
Delcourt  CMichel  FColvez  ALacroux  ADelage  MVernet  MH Associations of cardiovascular disease and its risk factors with age-related macular degeneration: the POLA study. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2001;8 (4) 237- 249
PubMed Link to Article
Klein  BEKlein  RLee  KEJensen  SC Measures of obesity and age-related eye diseases. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2001;8 (4) 251- 262
PubMed Link to Article
Kuang  TMTsai  SYHsu  WMCheng  CYLiu  JHChou  P Body mass index and age-related cataract: the Shihpai Eye Study. Arch Ophthalmol 2005;123 (8) 1109- 1114
PubMed Link to Article
Weintraub  JMWillett  WCRosner  BColditz  GASeddon  JMHankinson  SE A prospective study of the relationship between body mass index and cataract extraction among US women and men. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2002;26 (12) 1588- 1595
PubMed Link to Article
Brown  MMBrown  GCSharma  SLandy  JBakal  J Quality of life with visual acuity loss from diabetic retinopathy and age-related macular degeneration. Arch Ophthalmol 2002;120 (4) 481- 484
PubMed Link to Article
Ivers  RQCumming  RGMitchell  PAttebo  K Visual impairment and falls in older adults: the Blue Mountains Eye Study. J Am Geriatr Soc 1998;46 (1) 58- 64
PubMed
Vu  HTKeeffe  JEMcCarty  CATaylor  HR Impact of unilateral and bilateral vision loss on quality of life. Br J Ophthalmol 2005;89 (3) 360- 363
PubMed Link to Article
West  SKMunoz  BRubin  GS  et al.  Function and visual impairment in a population-based study of older adults: the SEE project. Salisbury Eye Evaluation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1997;38 (1) 72- 82
PubMed
Coleman  ALYu  FKeeler  EMangione  CM Treatment of uncorrected refractive error improves vision-specific quality of life. J Am Geriatr Soc 2006;54 (6) 883- 890
PubMed Link to Article
Evans  BJRowlands  G Correctable visual impairment in older people: a major unmet need. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2004;24 (3) 161- 180
PubMed Link to Article
Wang  JJMitchell  PSmith  WCumming  RGAttebo  K Impact of visual impairment on use of community support services by elderly persons: the Blue Mountains Eye Study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1999;40 (1) 12- 19
PubMed
Wang  JJMitchell  PSimpson  JMCumming  RGSmith  W Visual impairment, age-related cataract, and mortality. Arch Ophthalmol 2001;119 (8) 1186- 1190
PubMed Link to Article
Kempen  JHO'Colmain  BJLeske  MCet al; The Eye Diseases Prevalence Research Group, The prevalence of diabetic retinopathy among adults in the United States. Arch Ophthalmol 2004;122 (4) 552- 563
PubMed Link to Article
Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group, The prevalence of retinopathy in impaired glucose tolerance and recent-onset diabetes in the Diabetes Prevention Program. Diabet Med 2007;24 (2) 137- 144
PubMed Link to Article
Fong  DSAiello  LGardner  TW  et al. American Diabetes Association, Diabetic retinopathy. Diabetes Care 2003;26S99- S102
Link to Article
Attebo  KIvers  RQMitchell  P Refractive errors in an older population: the Blue Mountains Eye Study. Ophthalmology 1999;106 (6) 1066- 1072
PubMed Link to Article
Liou  HLMcCarty  CAJin  CLTaylor  HR Prevalence and predictors of undercorrected refractive errors in the Victorian population. Am J Ophthalmol 1999;127 (5) 590- 596
PubMed Link to Article
Muñoz  BWest  SKRodriguez  J  et al.  Blindness, visual impairment and the problem of uncorrected refractive error in a Mexican-American population: Proyecto VER. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2002;43 (3) 608- 614
PubMed
Robaei  DHuynh  SCKifley  AMitchell  P Correctable and non-correctable visual impairment in a population-based sample of 12-year-old Australian children. Am J Ophthalmol 2006;142 (1) 112- 118
PubMed Link to Article
Dandona  LDandona  RNaduvilath  TJ  et al.  Burden of moderate visual impairment in an urban population in southern India. Ophthalmology 1999;106 (3) 497- 504
PubMed Link to Article
Foran  SRose  KWang  JJMitchell  P Correctable visual impairment in an older population: the Blue Mountains Eye Study. Am J Ophthalmol 2002;134 (5) 712- 719
PubMed Link to Article
VanNewkirk  MRWeih  LMcCarty  CATaylor  HR Cause-specific prevalence of bilateral visual impairment in Victoria, Australia: the Visual Impairment Project. Ophthalmology 2001;108 (5) 960- 967
PubMed Link to Article
Weih  LMVannewkirk  MRMcCarty  CATaylor  HR Age-specific causes of bilateral visual impairment. Arch Ophthalmol 2000;118 (2) 264- 269
PubMed Link to Article
Vitale  SCotch  MFSperduto  REllwein  L Costs of refractive correction of distance vision impairment in the United States, 1999. Ophthalmology 2006;113 (12) 2163- 2170
PubMed Link to Article
Hodges  LEBerk  ML Unmet need for eyeglasses: results from the 1994 Robert Wood Johnson Access to Care Survey. J Am Optom Assoc 1999;70 (4) 261- 265
PubMed
American Diabetes Association, Standards of medical care in diabetes 2007. Diabetes Care 2007;30 ((suppl 1)) S4- S41
PubMed Link to Article
American Optometric Association, Optometric clinical practice guideline: comprehensive adult eye and vision examination. http://www.aoa.org/documents/CPG-1.pdf. Published 2005. Accessed November 19, 2006
American Academy of Ophthalmology, Preferred practice pattern: comprehensive adult medical eye evaluation. http://one.aao.org/asset.axd?id=6749e4a0-6a09-4795-8f8d-aec60dc937c9. Accessed November 19, 2006
McCarty  CALloyd-Smith  CWLee  SELivingston  PMStanislavsky  YLTaylor  HR Use of eye care services by people with diabetes: the Melbourne Visual Impairment Project. Br J Ophthalmol 1998;82 (4) 410- 414
PubMed Link to Article
Zhang  XSaaddine  JBLee  PP  et al.  Eye care in the United States: do we deliver to high-risk people who can benefit most from it? Arch Ophthalmol 2007;125 (3) 411- 418
PubMed Link to Article
Goldzweig  CLRowe  SWenger  NSMacLean  CHShekelle  PG Preventing and managing visual disability in primary care: clinical applications. JAMA 2004;291 (12) 1497- 1502
PubMed Link to Article
Rowe  SMacLean  CHShekelle  PG Preventing visual loss from chronic eye disease in primary care: scientific review. JAMA 2004;291 (12) 1487- 1495
PubMed Link to Article
Javitt  JC Preventing blindness in Americans: the need for eye health education. Surv Ophthalmol 1995;40 (1) 41- 44
PubMed Link to Article
Mitchell  PHayes  PWang  JJ Visual impairment in nursing home residents: the Blue Mountains Eye Study. Med J Aust 1997;166 (2) 73- 76
PubMed
Goss  DAGrosvenor  T Reliability of refraction—a literature review. J Am Optom Assoc 1996;67 (10) 619- 630
PubMed
Bush  TLMiller  SRGolden  ALHale  WE Self-report and medical record report agreement of selected medical conditions in the elderly. Am J Public Health 1989;79 (11) 1554- 1556
PubMed Link to Article
Harlow  SDLinet  MS Agreement between questionnaire data and medical records: the evidence for accuracy of recall. Am J Epidemiol 1989;129 (2) 233- 248
PubMed
Kehoe  RWu  S-YLeske  MCChylack  LT  Jr Comparing self-reported and physician-reported medical history. Am J Epidemiol 1994;139 (8) 813- 818
PubMed
Saydah  SHGeiss  LSTierney  EBenjamin  SMEngelgau  MBrancati  F Review of the performance of methods to identify diabetes cases among vital statistics, administrative, and survey data Ann Epidemiol 2004;14 (7) 507- 516
PubMed Link to Article

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Estimated prevalence of visual impairment (VI) among American adults by self-reported diabetes mellitus (DM). Presenting VI was defined as a presenting visual acuity (VA) worse than 20/40 in the better-seeing eye before an objective autorefraction test. Uncorrectable VI was defined as VA worse than 20/40 in the better-seeing eye after an objective autorefraction test. Correctable VI was defined as VA worse than 20/40 in the better-seeing eye before an objective autorefraction test that could be improved to normal (VA≥20/40) after an objective autorefraction test. Estimated prevalence of correctable severe impairment among people with diabetes has a relative standard error higher than 30% and is considered to be statistically unreliable. NDM indicates no diabetes mellitus; S, severe; and M, moderate. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Estimated age-specific prevalence of visual impairment (VI) among American adults by self-reported diabetes mellitus (DM). The figure does not have the same scale to best demonstrate the difference between DM and no diabetes mellitus (NDM).

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Definitions of Classes of VI in the Study
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Characteristics of the Study Population by Self-reported Diabetes Mellitus Status From the 1999-2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Multivariate Logistic Regression of VI and Self-reported DM Among American Adults From the 1999-2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveya

References

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National diabetes fact sheet: general information and national estimates on diabetes in the United States, 2005. http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pubs/factsheet05.htm. Accessed November 19, 2006
Narayan  KMBoyle  JPGeiss  LSSaaddine  JBThompson  TJ Impact of recent increase in incidence on future diabetes burden: US, 2005 Diabetes Care 2006;29 (9) 2114- 2116
PubMed Link to Article
Lee  DJGomez-Marin  OLam  BLZheng  DDJane  DM Trends in visual acuity impairment in US adults: the 1986-1995 National Health Interview Survey. Arch Ophthalmol 2004;122 (4) 506- 509
PubMed Link to Article
Fong  DSAiello  LGardner  TW  et al. American Diabetes Association, Retinopathy in diabetes. Diabetes Care 2004;27 ((suppl 1)) S84- S87
PubMed Link to Article
Congdon  NO'Colmain  BKlaver  CC  et al. Eye Diseases Prevalence Research Group, Causes and prevalence of visual impairment among adults in the United States. Arch Ophthalmol 2004;122 (4) 477- 485
PubMed Link to Article
Hovind  PTarnow  LRossing  K  et al.  Decreasing incidence of severe diabetic microangiopathy in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2003;26 (4) 1258- 1264
PubMed Link to Article
Klein  BEKlein  RLee  KE Diabetes, cardiovascular disease, selected cardiovascular disease risk factors, and the 5-year incidence of age-related cataract and progression of lens opacities: the Beaver Dam Eye Study. Am J Ophthalmol 1998;126 (6) 782- 790
PubMed Link to Article
Leske  MCWu  SYHennis  AConnell  AMHyman  LSchachat  A Diabetes, hypertension, and central obesity as cataract risk factors in a black population: the Barbados Eye Study. Ophthalmology 1999;106 (1) 35- 41
PubMed Link to Article
Rowe  NGMitchell  PGCumming  RGWans  JJ Diabetes, fasting blood glucose and age-related cataract: the Blue Mountains Eye Study. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2000;7 (2) 103- 114
PubMed Link to Article
Klein  BEKlein  RJensen  SC Open-angle glaucoma and older-onset diabetes: the Beaver Dam Eye Study. Ophthalmology 1994;101 (7) 1173- 1177
PubMed Link to Article
Mitchell  PSmith  WChey  THealey  PR Open-angle glaucoma and diabetes: the Blue Mountains Eye Study, Australia. Ophthalmology 1997;104 (4) 712- 718
PubMed Link to Article
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Correctable visual impairment among persons with diabetes—United States, 1999-2004. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2006;55 (43) 1169- 1172
PubMed
Vitale  SCotch  MFSperduto  RD Prevalence of visual impairment in the United States. JAMA 2006;295 (18) 2158- 2163
PubMed Link to Article
Klein  RKlein  BEMoss  SE Visual impairment in diabetes. Ophthalmology 1984;91 (1) 1- 9
PubMed Link to Article
Moss  SEKlein  RKlein  BE The 14-year incidence of visual loss in a diabetic population. Ophthalmology 1998;105 (6) 998- 1003
PubMed Link to Article
Saaddine  JBNarayan  KMEngelgau  MMAubert  REKlein  RBeckles  GL Prevalence of self-rated visual impairment among adults with diabetes. Am J Public Health 1999;89 (8) 1200- 1205
PubMed Link to Article
National Center for Health Statistics, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey: NHANES 1999-2004. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm. Accessed November 2006
Attebo  KMitchell  PSmith  W Visual acuity and the causes of visual loss in Australia: the Blue Mountains Eye Study. Ophthalmology 1996;103 (3) 357- 364
PubMed Link to Article
Hyman  LWu  SYConnell  AM  et al.  Prevalence and causes of visual impairment in the Barbados Eye Study. Ophthalmology 2001;108 (10) 1751- 1756
PubMed Link to Article
Klaver  CCWolfs  RCVingerling  JRHofman  Ade Jong  PT Age-specific prevalence and causes of blindness and visual impairment in an older population: the Rotterdam Study. Arch Ophthalmol 1998;116 (5) 653- 658
PubMed Link to Article
Klein  RKein  BELinton  KLDeMets  DL The Beaver Dam Eye Study: visual acuity. Ophthalmology 1991;98 (8) 1310- 1315
PubMed Link to Article
Tielsch  JMSommer  AWitt  KKatz  JRoyall  RM Blindness and visual impairment in an American urban population: the Baltimore Eye Survey. Arch Ophthalmol 1990;108 (2) 286- 290
PubMed Link to Article
Age-Related Eye Disease Study Research Group, Risk factors associated with age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology 2000;107 (12) 2224- 2232
PubMed Link to Article
Adler  AIStratton  IMNeil  HA  et al.  Association of systolic blood pressure with macrovascular and microvascular complications of type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 36): prospective observational study. BMJ 2000;321 (7258) 412- 419
PubMed Link to Article
UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group, Tight blood pressure control and risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 38. BMJ 1998;317 (7160) 703- 713
PubMed Link to Article
Wong  TYMitchell  P The eye in hypertension [published correction appears in Lancet. 2007;369(9579):2078]. Lancet 2007;369 (9559) 425- 435
PubMed Link to Article
Cheng  ACPang  CPLeung  ATChua  JKFan  DSLam  DS The association between cigarette smoking and ocular diseases. Hong Kong Med J 2000;6 (2) 195- 202
PubMed
Klein  RKlein  BETomany  SCMoss  SE Ten-year incidence of age-related maculopathy and smoking and drinking: the Beaver Dam Eye Study. Am J Epidemiol 2002;156 (7) 589- 598
PubMed Link to Article
Smith  WAssink  JKlein  R  et al.  Risk factors for age-related macular degeneration: pooled findings from three continents. Ophthalmology 2001;108 (4) 697- 704
PubMed Link to Article
Christen  WGGlynn  RJAjani  UA  et al.  Smoking cessation and risk of age-related cataract in men. JAMA 2000;284 (6) 713- 716
PubMed Link to Article
Weintraub  JMWillett  WCRosner  BColditz  GASeddon  JMHankinson  SE Smoking cessation and risk of cataract extraction among US women and men. Am J Epidemiol 2002;155 (1) 72- 79
PubMed Link to Article
West  SMunoz  BEmmett  EATaylor  HR Cigarette smoking and risk of nuclear cataracts. Arch Ophthalmol 1989;107 (8) 1166- 1169
PubMed Link to Article
Stratton  IMKohner  EMAldington  SJ  et al.  UKPDS 50: risk factors for incidence and progression of retinopathy in type II diabetes over 6 years from diagnosis. Diabetologia 2001;44 (2) 156- 163
PubMed Link to Article
Schaumberg  DAChristen  WGHankinson  SEGlynn  RJ Body mass index and the incidence of visually significant age-related maculopathy in men. Arch Ophthalmol 2001;119 (9) 1259- 1264
PubMed Link to Article
Seddon  JMCote  JDavis  NRosner  B Progression of age-related macular degeneration: association with body mass index, waist circumference, and waist-hip ratio. Arch Ophthalmol 2003;121 (6) 785- 792
PubMed Link to Article
Delcourt  CMichel  FColvez  ALacroux  ADelage  MVernet  MH Associations of cardiovascular disease and its risk factors with age-related macular degeneration: the POLA study. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2001;8 (4) 237- 249
PubMed Link to Article
Klein  BEKlein  RLee  KEJensen  SC Measures of obesity and age-related eye diseases. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2001;8 (4) 251- 262
PubMed Link to Article
Kuang  TMTsai  SYHsu  WMCheng  CYLiu  JHChou  P Body mass index and age-related cataract: the Shihpai Eye Study. Arch Ophthalmol 2005;123 (8) 1109- 1114
PubMed Link to Article
Weintraub  JMWillett  WCRosner  BColditz  GASeddon  JMHankinson  SE A prospective study of the relationship between body mass index and cataract extraction among US women and men. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2002;26 (12) 1588- 1595
PubMed Link to Article
Brown  MMBrown  GCSharma  SLandy  JBakal  J Quality of life with visual acuity loss from diabetic retinopathy and age-related macular degeneration. Arch Ophthalmol 2002;120 (4) 481- 484
PubMed Link to Article
Ivers  RQCumming  RGMitchell  PAttebo  K Visual impairment and falls in older adults: the Blue Mountains Eye Study. J Am Geriatr Soc 1998;46 (1) 58- 64
PubMed
Vu  HTKeeffe  JEMcCarty  CATaylor  HR Impact of unilateral and bilateral vision loss on quality of life. Br J Ophthalmol 2005;89 (3) 360- 363
PubMed Link to Article
West  SKMunoz  BRubin  GS  et al.  Function and visual impairment in a population-based study of older adults: the SEE project. Salisbury Eye Evaluation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1997;38 (1) 72- 82
PubMed
Coleman  ALYu  FKeeler  EMangione  CM Treatment of uncorrected refractive error improves vision-specific quality of life. J Am Geriatr Soc 2006;54 (6) 883- 890
PubMed Link to Article
Evans  BJRowlands  G Correctable visual impairment in older people: a major unmet need. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2004;24 (3) 161- 180
PubMed Link to Article
Wang  JJMitchell  PSmith  WCumming  RGAttebo  K Impact of visual impairment on use of community support services by elderly persons: the Blue Mountains Eye Study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1999;40 (1) 12- 19
PubMed
Wang  JJMitchell  PSimpson  JMCumming  RGSmith  W Visual impairment, age-related cataract, and mortality. Arch Ophthalmol 2001;119 (8) 1186- 1190
PubMed Link to Article
Kempen  JHO'Colmain  BJLeske  MCet al; The Eye Diseases Prevalence Research Group, The prevalence of diabetic retinopathy among adults in the United States. Arch Ophthalmol 2004;122 (4) 552- 563
PubMed Link to Article
Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group, The prevalence of retinopathy in impaired glucose tolerance and recent-onset diabetes in the Diabetes Prevention Program. Diabet Med 2007;24 (2) 137- 144
PubMed Link to Article
Fong  DSAiello  LGardner  TW  et al. American Diabetes Association, Diabetic retinopathy. Diabetes Care 2003;26S99- S102
Link to Article
Attebo  KIvers  RQMitchell  P Refractive errors in an older population: the Blue Mountains Eye Study. Ophthalmology 1999;106 (6) 1066- 1072
PubMed Link to Article
Liou  HLMcCarty  CAJin  CLTaylor  HR Prevalence and predictors of undercorrected refractive errors in the Victorian population. Am J Ophthalmol 1999;127 (5) 590- 596
PubMed Link to Article
Muñoz  BWest  SKRodriguez  J  et al.  Blindness, visual impairment and the problem of uncorrected refractive error in a Mexican-American population: Proyecto VER. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2002;43 (3) 608- 614
PubMed
Robaei  DHuynh  SCKifley  AMitchell  P Correctable and non-correctable visual impairment in a population-based sample of 12-year-old Australian children. Am J Ophthalmol 2006;142 (1) 112- 118
PubMed Link to Article
Dandona  LDandona  RNaduvilath  TJ  et al.  Burden of moderate visual impairment in an urban population in southern India. Ophthalmology 1999;106 (3) 497- 504
PubMed Link to Article
Foran  SRose  KWang  JJMitchell  P Correctable visual impairment in an older population: the Blue Mountains Eye Study. Am J Ophthalmol 2002;134 (5) 712- 719
PubMed Link to Article
VanNewkirk  MRWeih  LMcCarty  CATaylor  HR Cause-specific prevalence of bilateral visual impairment in Victoria, Australia: the Visual Impairment Project. Ophthalmology 2001;108 (5) 960- 967
PubMed Link to Article
Weih  LMVannewkirk  MRMcCarty  CATaylor  HR Age-specific causes of bilateral visual impairment. Arch Ophthalmol 2000;118 (2) 264- 269
PubMed Link to Article
Vitale  SCotch  MFSperduto  REllwein  L Costs of refractive correction of distance vision impairment in the United States, 1999. Ophthalmology 2006;113 (12) 2163- 2170
PubMed Link to Article
Hodges  LEBerk  ML Unmet need for eyeglasses: results from the 1994 Robert Wood Johnson Access to Care Survey. J Am Optom Assoc 1999;70 (4) 261- 265
PubMed
American Diabetes Association, Standards of medical care in diabetes 2007. Diabetes Care 2007;30 ((suppl 1)) S4- S41
PubMed Link to Article
American Optometric Association, Optometric clinical practice guideline: comprehensive adult eye and vision examination. http://www.aoa.org/documents/CPG-1.pdf. Published 2005. Accessed November 19, 2006
American Academy of Ophthalmology, Preferred practice pattern: comprehensive adult medical eye evaluation. http://one.aao.org/asset.axd?id=6749e4a0-6a09-4795-8f8d-aec60dc937c9. Accessed November 19, 2006
McCarty  CALloyd-Smith  CWLee  SELivingston  PMStanislavsky  YLTaylor  HR Use of eye care services by people with diabetes: the Melbourne Visual Impairment Project. Br J Ophthalmol 1998;82 (4) 410- 414
PubMed Link to Article
Zhang  XSaaddine  JBLee  PP  et al.  Eye care in the United States: do we deliver to high-risk people who can benefit most from it? Arch Ophthalmol 2007;125 (3) 411- 418
PubMed Link to Article
Goldzweig  CLRowe  SWenger  NSMacLean  CHShekelle  PG Preventing and managing visual disability in primary care: clinical applications. JAMA 2004;291 (12) 1497- 1502
PubMed Link to Article
Rowe  SMacLean  CHShekelle  PG Preventing visual loss from chronic eye disease in primary care: scientific review. JAMA 2004;291 (12) 1487- 1495
PubMed Link to Article
Javitt  JC Preventing blindness in Americans: the need for eye health education. Surv Ophthalmol 1995;40 (1) 41- 44
PubMed Link to Article
Mitchell  PHayes  PWang  JJ Visual impairment in nursing home residents: the Blue Mountains Eye Study. Med J Aust 1997;166 (2) 73- 76
PubMed
Goss  DAGrosvenor  T Reliability of refraction—a literature review. J Am Optom Assoc 1996;67 (10) 619- 630
PubMed
Bush  TLMiller  SRGolden  ALHale  WE Self-report and medical record report agreement of selected medical conditions in the elderly. Am J Public Health 1989;79 (11) 1554- 1556
PubMed Link to Article
Harlow  SDLinet  MS Agreement between questionnaire data and medical records: the evidence for accuracy of recall. Am J Epidemiol 1989;129 (2) 233- 248
PubMed
Kehoe  RWu  S-YLeske  MCChylack  LT  Jr Comparing self-reported and physician-reported medical history. Am J Epidemiol 1994;139 (8) 813- 818
PubMed
Saydah  SHGeiss  LSTierney  EBenjamin  SMEngelgau  MBrancati  F Review of the performance of methods to identify diabetes cases among vital statistics, administrative, and survey data Ann Epidemiol 2004;14 (7) 507- 516
PubMed Link to Article

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 16

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles
JAMAevidence.com