MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415586642 · doi:10.1186/s12886-025-04471-4

Prevalence, burden, and determinants of visual impairment and blindness among adults in Saudi Arabia: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4415586642 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Ophthalmology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVisual impairmentBlindnessRefractive errorPublic healthVision disorderMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.717
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.090
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.336 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it