ArticleBMC public health2025
Effective refractive error coverage and quality gaps in Bhutan: evidence from rapid assessment of refractive error.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUncorrected refractive errors (URE) and presbyopia are leading causes of visual impairment (VI) globally. Bhutan currently lacks population-based data on adult refractive error, hindering efforts to meet WHO’s 2030 targets for effective refractive error coverage (eREC).
aimTo estimate the prevalence of URE, presbyopia, spectacle use, and eREC among individuals aged 18 to 49 years in Bhutan.
methodsA population-based cross-sectional survey using the Rapid Assessment of Refractive Error (RARE) methodology was conducted in Bhutan across 61 clusters in 19 districts. Participants aged 18 to 49 were recruited via multistage random sampling. Distance visual acuity (VA) was measured unaided, with current correction, and with pinhole using a LogMAR chart at 4 m. Near VA was assessed at 40 cm with an N- notation chart. Prevalence estimates were age- and sex-standardized to the 2017 Bhutan national census data. The REC, eREC and relative quality gap were calculated per WHO definitions.
resultsFrom a pool of 3,660 eligible participants, 3,523 (96.3%) were examined. The age- and sex-adjusted prevalence of distance VI was 11.0% (95% CI: 10.0–12.0), and refractive error affected 9.95% (95% CI: 8.9-10.98). The adjusted URE prevalence was 2.44% (95% CI: 1.84–3.04), higher in females (p = 0.04). Individuals with monastic education (OR: 7.65) and unemployed individuals/housewives (OR: 4.44) had higher URE odds (p = 0.01, for both). Among those aged 35 or older (n = 1423), adjusted prevalence of uncorrected presbyopia was 30.5% (95% CI: 28.3–32.8%); higher in males and older age groups (45–49 years) (p < 0.05, for both). Distance eREC was 74.1% (95% CI: 71.2–77.0), significantly lower in females (67.7%) than males (79.9%) (p < 0.001), and near eREC was 31.3% (95% CI: 29.8–34.6). The relative quality gap for distance and near was 10.9% and 2.8%, respectively. Spectacle use was 23.5%, higher in females (25.3%, p = 0.01).
conclusionURE prevalence in Bhutan is low, but gaps remain in near vision correction, gender equity in eye care access, and quality of service. Strengthening near-vision services, enhancing public-private optical partnership, and implementing gender-responsive strategies for service delivery are essential to achieve WHO’s 2030 eREC targets.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.