Prevalence of visual impairment due to refractive error among children and adolescents in Ethiopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Globally, the prevalence of refractive error was 12%, and visual impairment due to refractive error was 2.1%. In sub-Saharan Africa, the prevalence of refractive error and visual impairment due to refractive error was 12.6% and 3.4%, respectively. In Ethiopia, the prevalence of visual impairment due to refractive error varies from 2.5% in the Gurage zone to 12.3% in Hawassa city. Hence, this Meta-analysis aimed to summarize the pooled prevalence of visual impairment due to refractive error in Ethiopia. METHODS: A systematic search of the literature was conducted by the authors to identify all relevant primary studies. All articles on the prevalence of visual impairment due to refractive error in Ethiopia were identified through a literature search. The databases used to search for studies were PubMed, Science Direct, POPLINE, HENARI, Google Scholar, and grey literature was searched on Google until December 15, 2021. In this meta-analysis, the presence of publication bias was evaluated using funnel plots and Begg's tests at a significance level of less than 0.05. The sensitivity analysis was conducted to check for a single study's effect on the overall prevalence of refractive error. RESULT: About 1664 studies were retrieved from initial electronic searches using international databases and google searches. A total number of 20,088 children and adolescents were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of visual impairment due to refractive error in Ethiopia using the random effects model was estimated to be 6% (95% CI, 5-7) with a significant level of heterogeneity (I2 = 94.4%; p < 0.001). The pooled prevalence of visual impairment due to refractive was analyzed by subtypes, and pooled prevalence was estimated to be 4%, 5.2%, and 1% for myopia, hyperopia, and astigmatism, respectively. CONCLUSION: The pooled prevalence of visual impairment due to refractive error was high in Ethiopia. About one in twenty-five Ethiopian children and adolescents are affected by visual impairment due to myopia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".