Prevalence, burden, and determinants of visual impairment and blindness among adults in Saudi Arabia: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Visual impairment (VI) and blindness represent major public health challenges with significant social and economic consequences. In Saudi Arabia, multiple studies have investigated prevalence and causes, but findings vary due to differences in study design, populations, and definitions. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to estimate the pooled prevalence, causes, and determinants of VI and blindness among adults in Saudi Arabia. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and regional databases was conducted up to July 2025. Studies were eligible if they included adults (≥ 18 years) residing in Saudi Arabia and reported the prevalence, causes, or risk factors of visual impairment (VI) and/or blindness. Study quality was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Pooled prevalence estimates and all statistical analyses were conducted in R (version 4.4.3) using random-effects models. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression were performed to assess heterogeneity by region, study period, and study setting. RESULTS: Nine studies comprising 29,707 participants were included. The pooled prevalence of VI among adults was 16.8% (95% CI: 11.4-23.9), while the prevalence of blindness was 1.7% (95% CI: 1.0-2.8). When stratified by study setting, the prevalence of VI was higher in clinic-based studies (22.1%) compared with population-based surveys (10.8%). Uncorrected refractive error was the leading cause of VI, while cataract was the primary cause of blindness. Subgroup analyses revealed significantly higher VI prevalence in females (20.7% vs. 12.5% in males). Meta-regression confirmed that study setting and publication year were significant sources of heterogeneity, with prevalence estimates increasing over time. CONCLUSION: Visual impairment and blindness represent a significant public health burden in Saudi Arabia. The high prevalence is driven primarily by preventable or treatable causes, mainly uncorrected refractive error and cataract. These findings highlight the urgent need for targeted public health strategies, including enhanced screening and improved access to care.
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 | 0.011 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".