Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2025 Jun 23;20(6):e0326263. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0326263

Global, regional, and national burden of cataract: A comprehensive analysis and projections from 1990 to 2021

Lixia Lin 1,2, Yongshun Liang 1, Guiyang Jiang 3, Qingqiao Gan 1, Tianqi Yang 1, Peipei Liao 1, Hao Liang 1,*
Editor: Osamudiamen Cyril Obasuyi4
PMCID: PMC12185006  PMID: 40549768

Abstract

Objective

Cataract is the most prevalent cause of blindness. Surgery remains the only effective and widely accepted treatment; early diagnosis and intervention can significantly prevent blindness. Hence,Understanding the current epidemiological status of cataract is crucial for formulating better healthcare policies and effectively preventing blindness due to cataract.

Design

This study utilizes Global burden of Disease (GBD) 2021 data to conduct an in-depth analysis of the burden of cataract from 1990 to 2021, including gender disparities, risk factors, and the relationship between Socio-Demographic index (SDI) and disease burden. Additionally, we performed a frontier analysis of Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) due to cataract from 1990 to 2021. Finally, we used the BAPC model to project the burden of cataract by gender from 2022 to 2030.

Results

The study revealed that the global burden of cataract remains significant. Worldwide, the Estimate Annual Percentage Change (EAPC) for cataract prevalence was 0.2117([95% CI] 0.1172–0.3063); the EAPC for cataract DALYs is −0.4798([95%CI] −0.5766--0.3828). Predominantly affecting females, individuals aged 50 and older, and those in medium-low and low SDI regions. Furthermore, the Bayesian Age-Period-Cohort (BAPC) model forecast a gradual decline in the global burden of cataract over the next nine years.

Conclusion

This study utilized GBD 2021 to provide an in-depth analysis of the current global disease burden of cataracts. The results showed that although the Age-Standardized Rate (ASR) of DALYs decreased, the overall cataract Number still showed an increasing trend from 1990 to 2021 and 2022–2030.

Introduction

Cataract is a condition characterized by lens opacification that impairs vision. Symptoms include blurred vision, reduced contrast sensitivity, and monocular diplopia. The condition is primarily managed through surgical intervention [1,2]. In 2020, approximately 94 million individuals aged 50 and older worldwide experienced blindness or visual impairment due to cataract. This number is expected to rise as the population ages, leading to an increase in the number of cataract patients aged 60 and above [2,3]. Cataract is primarily classified into congenital and acquired types. Among acquired cataracts, age-related cataract is the most common and a major cause of visual impairment and blindness. The pathogenesis of cataract remains not fully elucidated, although current understanding mainly focuses on aging and oxidative stress [3]. Additionally, risk factors for this condition include ocular diseases other than cataract, diabetes, hypertension, obesity, ultraviolet radiation, and smoking [47]. Currently, there are no effective pharmacological treatments for cataract; surgery remains the sole method for curing the condition. This is largely because the pathogenesis of cataract is multifactorial, involving oxidative stress, protein aggregation, and other complex mechanisms. Additionally, the delivery of drugs to the lens is challenging due to the blood-aqueous barrier, which limits the efficacy of pharmacological interventions. In contrast, surgical treatment, such as cataract extraction with intraocular lens implantation, has been well-established and proven to be highly effective and safe [8,9]. However, with increasing life expectancy and the uneven distribution of global development and medical resources, cataract not only diminishes patients’ quality of life but also poses risks due to the rising demand for surgery, placing a significant economic burden on families and society [10]. Therefore, early diagnosis and treatment of cataract are effective strategies to reduce blindness caused by the condition. Furthermore, understanding current epidemiological patterns and forecasting future trends are crucial for developing healthcare policies aimed at mitigating such blindness.

At present, research on the epidemiology of cataract often focuses on national or regional scales. For instance, the Swedish National Cataract Register (NCR) contains data on over 2.4 million cataract surgeries performed between 1992 and 2021. During this period, the rate of cataract surgeries recorded in the NCR in Sweden increased from 3,700 cases to 12,800 cases [11]. Moreover, studies utilizing the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) database have examined the burden of cataract between 1990 and 2019. These findings reveal a significant increase in the burden of cataract over this period [12,13]. However, epidemiological studies on cataract that focus on national or regional levels were limited in scope, particularly in terms of their coverage and sample size. Many of these studies were confined to specific regions or populations, which may not be representative of the broader global or national context. Additionally, the sample sizes of these studies were often small, leading to potential biases and limited generalizability of the findings. These limitations make it challenging to analyze the epidemiological trends of cataract from a broader perspective and to draw comprehensive conclusions about the disease burden at a global level. In contrast, while studies using the GBD 2019 data on cataract burden provide valuable insights, the GBD 2021 dataset, which includes epidemiological data from the Covid-19 era, offers a more current perspective on the global trends of cataract epidemiology.

Therefore, in this study, we utilized cataract burden data from GBD 2021 to estimate, analyze, and predict future trends of the disease burden globally, across GBD regions, and within countries. We examined variations in disease burden using parameters such as gender, age, and the Socio-Demographic Index (SDI), and employed the Bayesian Age-Period-Cohort (BAPC) model to project cataract prevalence and Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) from 2022 to 2030. These detailed analyses aim to enhance understanding of the current and potential future burden of cataract, facilitating estimates of required medical resources and surgical needs, and thereby assisting governments and health authorities in developing more effective public health policies and resource allocation strategies.

Materials and methods

Data acquisition and disease classification

The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study was a comprehensive research initiative aimed at systematically assessing the impact of major diseases and disabilities on global health. Compared to traditional epidemiological research methods, the GBD study offered advantages such as extensive coverage, systematic data organization, and standardized analysis. In the GBD study, the health burden of diseases could be quantified using measures such as Prevalence, Incidence, Deaths, Years Lived with Disability (YLDs), Years of Life Lost (YLLs), and Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs).

In this study, data on the global burden of cataracts were obtained from GBD 2021 (https://ghdx.healthdata.org/gbd-2021). Additionally, this database is part of a global research project led by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington, and its use has been approved by the university’s review board. The study does not involve ethical issues related to patient information or informed consent, as previous studies have specifically clarified the ethical exemption of GBD [14].

Specifically, we selected the Prevalence and DALYs indicators for cataracts from 1990 to 2021 across 21 GBD regions and 204 countries, including data on both Number and Rate. We also selected cataract burden data categorized by Both, Female, and Male. Given that cataract has a low mortality rate and that in GBD 2021, DALYs were equivalent to YLDs, the following descriptions and analyses are based on DALYs. Moreover, the GBD 2021 database did not include mortality data for cataracts. Therefore, this study utilized Prevalence and DALYs as general indicators of cataract-related health impairment [12,15].

Furthermore, in the GBD 2021 study, cataracts were characterized as lens opacification caused by protein accumulation, which subsequently led to visual impairment (International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes H25-H26.9, H28-H28.8) [16].

Data analysis

Firstly, this study described the burden of cataracts in 21 GBD regions by comparing the absolute counts of cataract prevalence and DALYs from 1990 to 2021. Furthermore, it calculated the age-standardized rates (ASR) of prevalence and DALYs from 1990 to 2021 across these 21 GBD regions, accounting for the effects of population age structure to mitigate biases due to differences in age group proportions. Subsequently, the study assessed the Estimate Annual Percentage Change (EAPC) in ASR from 1990 to 2021 to reflect the changes in ASR over this period (positive values indicating an increase and negative values a decrease). The prevalence and DALYs of cataracts in 204 countries for 2021 were then mapped on a global scale to visualize the burden of cataracts worldwide. Finally, the 95% confidence interval (CI), derived from the 25th and 975th values of 1,000 ordered samples, provided a range of reliability and precision for the estimates, indicating the potential variability of the results [12,14,17].Lastly, the R programming packages utilized in this analysis included dplyr, ggplot2, reshape2, and readxl.

Secondly, the SDI served as an indicator reflecting educational, healthcare, and economic conditions across different regions and countries, and it was extensively applied in global burden of disease and other epidemiological research. Specifically, SDI ranged from 0 to 1, with higher values indicating better socioeconomic development: high SDI countries (SDI > 0.81), upper-middle SDI countries (0.70 < SDI ≤ 0.81), middle SDI countries (0.60 < SDI ≤ 0.70), lower-middle SDI countries (0.46 < SDI ≤ 0.60), and low SDI countries (SDI ≤ 0.46) [14]. In this study, we categorized SDI according to the global SDI status provided by GBD into 21 GBD regions and 204 countries, and conducted correlation analyses on cataract prevalence, DALYs, and SDI. The scatter points for each region depicted changes from 1990 to 2021 from left to right [18]. In this section, the R programming packages utilized included reshape, ggplot2, and ggrepel.

Furthermore, we conducted a frontier analysis of DALYs across 204 countries or regions. Here, the frontier represented those countries or regions exhibiting the lowest burden of cataract disease, with SDI reflecting the minimal disease burden. The Effective Difference (EF) was defined as the gap between a region’s disease burden and the frontier, indicating the difference between the disease burden shown by a country’s or region’s SDI and the potential achievable burden. Significant effective gaps suggested that there might be room for improvement in disease burden based on the country or region’s position within the development spectrum. Consequently, this study utilized EF to assess the potential for reducing cataract DALYs across various regions [19].

Subsequently, the Bayesian Age-Period-Cohort (BAPC) model was employed as a statistical tool for predicting disease burden. This model integrated Bayesian statistical methods with an age-period-cohort analysis framework. It was developed from the traditional Age-Period-Cohort (APC) model. By accounting for the effects of age, period, and cohort on prevalence and DALYs, the BAPC model aimed to describe disease trends [20]. However, while the APC model was capable of forecasting future disease burden, its linear relationships among age, period, and cohort factors complicated parameter estimation. To address these complexities, the BAPC model utilized Bayesian techniques, combining prior information with sample data to estimate the posterior distribution of unknown parameters. This approach directly approximated the posterior distribution, resolving issues related to model mixing and convergence, thereby enhancing the model’s reliability and accuracy [21,22]. In the BAPC model used in this study, we categorized individuals into age groups such as <9 years old, 20–24 years old, 25–29 years old, 30–34 years old, …, 75–79 years old, 80–84 years old, and >85 years old. We then projected the prevalence and DALYs of cataract disease for different genders up to the year 2030, focusing on both ASR and absolute counts [22]. Finally, the R programming packages utilized in this section included BAPC and INLA.

Finally, based on the major risk factors downloaded from the GBD 2021 website, this study selected metabolic risks, air pollution, and smoking, and estimated the proportion of the impact of these risk factors on cataract DALYs [23]. The R programming packages involved in this section were ggsci, dplyr, and ggplot2.

All statistical analyses conducted in this study were based on R (Version 4.2.3).

Results

Global burden of cataract DALYs and prevalence from 1990 to 2021

Globally, the absolute count of DALYs increased from 3.417 million in 1990 to 6.554 million in 2021, representing a 92.8% rise. Similar to the absolute count of prevalence, the increase in DALYs was more pronounced among females (Fig 1A). In contrast, the ASR of DALYs (ASDR) exhibited a declining trend, decreasing from 91 per 100,000 people in 1990 to 77 per 100,000 people in 2021, with an EAPC of −0.4798 ([95% CI] −0.5766, −0.3828). Overall, although the absolute count increased, the ASDR exhibited a declining trend across all 21 GBD regions, with negative EAPC values. Notably, the regions with the most pronounced decline in ASDR were (EAPC: from −1.7691 to −1.1782): Andean Latin America, Southern Sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia, Central Latin America, North Africa and the Middle East and South Asia (Table 1).

Fig 1. Changes in cataract burden from 1990 to 2021.

Fig 1

A. The Number and Age-Standardized Rates of DALYs by gender; B. The Number and Age-Standardized Rates of Prevalence by gender.

Table 1. Changes in the global and regional burden of cataract disease from 1990 to 2021.

Prevalence Disability-Adjusted Life Years
1990 counts
(10k cases)
2021 counts
(10k cases)
1990 Age standardized rate (per 100k population) 2021 Age standardized rate (per 100k population) Estimated Annual Percent Change (CI) 1990 counts
(10k cases)
2021 counts
(10k cases)
1990 Age standardized rate (per 100k population) 2021 Age standardized rate (per 100k population) Estimated Annual Percent Change (CI)
Global 4233.2 10057.1 1145 1181 0.2117
(0.1172-0.3063)
341.7 655.4 91 77 −0.4798
(−0.5766--0.3828)
Andean Latin America 33.8 81.6 1814 1428 −1.1600
(−1.312--1.0078)
2.7 5.3 144 92 −1.7691
(−1.8866--1.6515)
Australasia 8.1 203 359 354 0.0039
(−0.0669-0.0748)
0.5 1.1 22 20 −0.2511
(−0.2894--0.2128)
Caribbean 17.8 33.9 717 627 −0.4336
(−0.4454--0.4217)
1.5 2.3 59 43 −1.0518
(−1.0726--1.031)
Central Asia 52.8 82.5 1227 1147 −0.2516
(−0.2851--0.2181)
3.3 4.6 76 64 −0.5969
(−0.6496--0.5442)
Central Europe 56.7 91.7 408 394 −0.1394
(−0.1564--0.1224)
3 4.4 22 19 −0.4284
(−0.4429--0.4138)
Central Latin America 82.1 223.8 1115 935 −0.5909
(−0.6097--0.5722)
6.9 15.2 92 63 −1.2913
(−1.3384--1.2441)
Central Sub-Saharan Africa 7.6 18.3 456 444 −0.0058
(−0.0327-0.021)
0.6 1.2 34 27 −0.6349
(−0.6874--0.5825)
East Asia 578.5 2008.3 859 968 0.6428
(0.3926-0.8936)
45.9 112.2 65 54 −0.2433
(−0.5775-0.092)
Eastern Europe 142.5 185.4 548 521 −0.2248
(−0.2562--0.1934)
9.1 10.3 35 29 −0.6709
(−0.7291--0.6126)
Eastern Sub-Saharan Africa 107.6 225.8 1608 1485 −0.1815
(−0.2154--0.1476)
10.4 19.5 148 123 −0.5152
(−0.5545--0.4759)
High-income Asia Pacific 54.1 153.8 292 282 −0.056
(−0.0824--0.0296)
3.7 8.8 19 17 −0.3618
(−0.4000--0.3237)
High-income North America 105.4 1939 291 284 −0.0843
(−0.2053-0.0368)
6.4 11.2 18 17 −0.2339
(−0.3074--0.1604)
North Africa and Middle East 251.9 628.7 1767 1571 −0.4281
(−0.4578--0.3985)
20.8 40.2 143 99 −1.2804
(−1.3175--1.2433)
Oceania 6.3 15.6 2650 2534 −0.2083
(−0.3281--0.0883)
0.5 1.1 194 161 −0.6006
(−0.7065--0.4945)
South Asia 1598.2 3674.7 3183 2661 −0.3578
(−0.4893--0.2262)
141.5 264 284 194 −1.1782
(−1.2643--1.0921)
Southeast Asia 550.3 1231.7 2502 2102 −0.7234
(−0.7846--0.6621)
42.9 77.8 192 132 −1.3646
(−1.4532--1.276)
Southern Latin America 25.8 50.6 596 565 −0.1392
(−0.1623--0.1161)
1.7 2.7 38 30 −0.6676
(−0.6883--0.6469)
Southern Sub-Saharan Africa 27 46.3 1096 913 −0.838
(−0.9102--0.7657)
3.1 4.4 119 84 −1.4866
(−1.5797--1.3933)
Tropical Latin America 93.4 243.3 1181 980 −0.1024
(−0.2741-0.0695)
7.9 17.1 100 69 −0.7823
(−0.9483--0.6161)
Western Europe 265.5 453.8 453 433 −0.1365
(−0.1494--0.1237)
15.7 24.8 27 25 −0.2873
(−0.3027--0.272)
Western Sub-Saharan Africa 167.9 393.1 2136 2221 −0.0026
(−0.1163-0.1113)
13.6 27.2 171 151 −0.4891
(−0.5945--0.3835)

Furthermore, the absolute count of cataract prevalence increased from 42.332 million in 1990 to 100.571 million in 2021, marking an increase of nearly 138%. This prevalence exhibited a year-on-year increase, with a more pronounced rise among females (Fig 1B). Additionally, the ASR of prevalence (ASPR) rose from 1145 per 100,000 people in 1990 to 1181 per 100,000 people in 2021. The EAPC for prevalence was 0.2117 ([95% CI] 0.1172, 0.3063). Although the global burden of cataract prevalence increased, the ASPR declined in most regions compared to 1990. Regions with the most notable declines in ASPR included (EAPC: from −1.16 to −0.3578): Andean Latin America, Southeast Asia, and South Asia (Table 1).

Lastly, the results of the gender differences in the ASDR and ASPR across all age groups globally indicated significant gender disparities in South Asia, Oceania, Western Sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia, and North Africa and the Middle East (S1 Fig). The age-standardized rates of both disease burden indicators were higher for females compared to males.

Global burden of cataract across different SDI regions

As illustrated by Figs 2 and 3 reveal that the highest ASR for this disease occurred in regions with an SDI range of 0.3–0.5 (low-middle SDI). Notably, the regions and countries with pronounced disease burden in the low-middle SDI category included South Asia, Oceania, Southeast Asia, as well as Pakistan, Ethiopia, South Sudan, Afghanistan, and Cambodia. Among the 204 countries, South Asia exhibited the highest cataract disease burden, with its ASPR rising from approximately 200–300 per 100,000 people between 1990 and 2021, and its ASDR increasing from about 2500–3500 per 100,000 people over the same period. Additionally, Pakistan had the highest cataract disease burden among the 204 countries, with an ASPR of 308 cases per 100,000 people and an ASDR of 3448 cases per 100,000 people (detailed country-specific ASR can be found in S1 Table).

Fig 2. The differences in ASPR of cataract among regions with different Socio-Demographic Index levels.

Fig 2

A. The ASPR of cataract in the 21 GBD regions; B. The ASPR of cataract in 204 countries.

Fig 3. The differences in ASDR of cataract among regions with different Socio-Demographic Index levels.

Fig 3

A. The ASDR of cataract in the 21 GBD regions; B. The ASDR of cataract in 204 countries.

Frontier analysis of cataracts

Frontier analysis revealed that as SDI increases, the ASDR decreases gradually (Fig 4). After an SDI greater than 0.5, changes in ASDR become relatively stable. The five countries/regions with the highest excess factor (EF range: 180.6–292.8) were Pakistan, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Cambodia, and Afghanistan. Conversely, the countries with the lowest EF (EF range: 10.3–21.7) were the Lithuania, Singapore, Denmark, the United Kingdom, and Iceland (detailed data are provided in S2 Table).

Fig 4. Frontier analysis of Disability-Adjusted Life Years.

Fig 4

A. The distance of cataract ASDR from the “Frontier” in 204 countries during 1990-2021; B. The distance of ASDR from the “Frontier” in 204 countries in 2021.

Forecasting cataract disease burden from 2022 to 2030 based on the BAPC model

This study, based on the BAPC model, utilized the ASPR and ASDR prediction pie charts (Fig 5) to illustrate a gradual decline in cataract burden from 2022 to 2030 for both males and females, with a satisfactory fit of the pie chart model. Although the age-standardized cataract burden exhibited a decreasing trend, the absolute counts of cataract burden for both genders in 2030 were projected to increase compared to 2021. The prediction of age-specific numbers and rates based on the BAPC model shows the burden of cataract were predominantly concentrated in individuals aged 50 and above (S2 Fig). Therefore, interventions targeting middle-aged and older adults are essential to reduce disability caused by cataracts.

Fig 5. Prediction of cataract disease burden from 2022 to 2030 based on a Bayesian-age-period-cohort-model.

Fig 5

A. Prediction of female prevalence; B. Prediction of female ASDR; C. Prediction of male prevalence; D. Prediction of male DALYs.

Analysis of risk factors influencing cataract DALYs

As illustrated in Fig 6, metabolic risks such as diabetes, obesity, and hormonal changes significantly impacted the DALYs of cataract patients, with metabolic risks accounting for 26.6% of the global cataract DALYs. Regions with particularly high proportions included North Africa and the Middle East (35.8%), High-income Asia Pacific (35.2%), and Central Latin America (33.7%). Additionally, air pollution, including PM2.5, heavy metal ions, and other forms of air pollution, also had a broad impact on cataract DALYs, affecting 29.8% of patients globally. The regions experiencing the most severe impact were Eastern Sub-Saharan Africa (52.2%), Oceania (47.4%), Western Sub-Saharan Africa (47.2%), and Central Sub-Saharan Africa (43.2%). Hence, we believe that reducing exposure to metabolic factors and air pollution is very likely to make a substantial contribution to reducing the burden of cataract.

Fig 6. Analysis of attributable risk factors for Disability-Adjusted Life Years.

Fig 6

Discussion

This study utilized global burden of disease data on cataracts from the GBD 2021 database to analyze the changes in the disease burden of cataracts across various dimensions worldwide from 1990 to 2021. Our findings indicated that the ASDR due to cataracts exhibited a declining trend, while the ASPR showed an increasing trend. The higher burden of cataracts was concentrated in medium and low-middle SDI regions. Moreover, the advanced analysis demonstrated that there is considerable potential for improving DALYs in regions with lower SDI levels. Lastly, predictions based on the BAPC model also suggested a declining trend in the global burden of cataracts by 2030. The following sections will provide a detailed discussion of the results obtained from this study.

Ages

Specifically, in our study, nearly 90% of cataract patients in our study were over the age of 40 (S2 Fig). At the same time, cataracts are widely recognized within the medical community as an age-related condition [2427]. Cataracts not only pose a risk of blindness for elderly patients but also elevate the risk of falls and fractures within this population [28,29]. Research by Pundlik et al. has demonstrated that the fracture risk among cataract patients is significantly higher compared to other eye conditions, with increased risk observed across nearly all fracture sites [28,29]. Moreover, cataract- related visual impairment and blindness, particularly in the elderly, is associated with a heightened risk of psychological and mental health issues such as anxiety, depression, Alzheimer’s disease, vascular dementia, and cognitive impairment, contributing to a high number of DALYs for these patients [3033]. Therefore, allocating healthcare resources specifically for certain age groups is essential. This targeted approach can effectively reduce the incidence of blindness caused by cataracts.

Genders

Our study also found significant gender differences in the burden of cataracts. Globally and across 21 GBD regions, the burden of cataracts is notably higher in females than males (S1 Fig). Although the ASR for cataract prevalence and DALYs showed a relatively stable and fluctuating trend approaching 2021, the absolute numbers are rising, predominantly among women. This gender inequality may be attributed to hormonal changes and societal roles. Researchers like Zetterberg have analyzed this imbalance, suggesting that estrogen might offer antioxidant protection against cataract formation, but a decline in estrogen levels post-menopause increases cataract risk in women [34]. Additionally, as individuals age, the fluctuations in female hormonal levels become more pronounced. Furthermore, clinical retrospective studies have identified that women of lower socioeconomic status and those with higher parity are at an increased risk of developing cataracts [24]. Moreover, the division of social responsibilities is also a significant factor. Relatively speaking, women are more frequently involved in cooking tasks in contemporary settings. Research by Rafiq et al. has demonstrated a positive correlation between indoor air pollution (resulting from the burning of biomass fuels) and cataracts in women, with the risk of disease increasing with age [27]. This disparity is particularly pronounced in middle and lower-middle SDI regions. For example, in Nigeria, the prevalence of cataracts among elderly women is higher compared to younger women and men, leading to a greater demand for cataract surgeries [35].

Metabolism

The results of the risk factor analysis in this study reveal a significant association between cataract DALYs and metabolic-related issues. Factors including, but not limited to, diabetes, obesity, liver disease, and high-fat and high-sugar diet are associated with an increased risk of cataracts. Metabolic disorders often lead to higher cataract ASPR and ASDR.

Firstly, consider diabetes and obesity. Ye et al. analyzed data from the UK Biobank to investigate the relationship between the age of diabetes diagnosis and vision impairment. Their findings indicated that early diagnosis of type 2 diabetes (T2D) significantly increases the risk of cataracts and glaucoma, with individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) experiencing even higher risks [36]. Moreover, Yuan et al. applied Mendelian randomization to demonstrate that genetic traits related to high BMI, such as those associated with T2D, can raise the risk of cataracts [6]. Interestingly, Chen et al. used meta-analysis to show that moderate overweight (BMI: 25–29.9) may be negatively associated with cataract prevalence, whereas obesity (BMI: > 30) is positively associated with cataract prevalence [37]. Therefore, obesity and obesity-related diseases are now also considered significant risk factors for cataract development.

Furthermore, in the context of liver disease, Kang et al., based on a cross-sectional cohort study from the 2010–2011 Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, found that participants with cataracts had higher liver fibrosis scores. After data optimization, they observed that metabolic dysfunction-related fatty liver disease was significantly associated with an increased odds ratio for cataracts and suggested that fatty liver disease might act as an independent risk factor for cataract development [38].

Additionally, dietary habits have been shown to influence the risk of cataract development. Numerous studies suggest that a balanced diet can significantly reduce the risk of developing cataracts. For example, research by Kim et al. indicates that higher intake of carbohydrates, polyunsaturated n-6 fatty acids, vitamins, and minerals is associated with a lower risk of cataract incidence [39]. Similarly, Jiang et al. found and summarized that higher consumption of vegetables and fruits is negatively correlated with cataract prevalence, with this trend being more pronounced in older adults. Conversely, a high Dietary Inflammatory Index (DII) is positively associated with cataract Prevalence [4042]. Specifically, Sesso et al. found that moderate intake of anthocyanins, vitamins B2, B12, and B6 is associated with a reduced risk of cataracts. Additionally, daily consumption of tea (4–6 cups) and coffee (2–3 cups) is linked to a lower risk of cataracts [4345].

Thus, differences in dietary patterns and consumption abilities across regions with varying SDI levels may contribute to disparities in cataract disease burden. Specifically, middle and high SDI regions focus more on balanced nutrition, while low SDI regions may face either nutrient deficiencies or excesses, both of which increase cataract risk. Hence, dietary health significantly impacts cataract burden. We advocate for medical and national policymakers to address these nutritional issues in specific populations to reduce the burden of cataracts and other related diseases [46].

Environmental factors

At the same time, environmental sanitation also plays a role in the burden of cataract disease. Ebrahimi et al. have described how elevated levels of heavy metals, such as lead (Pb), in the environment can directly or indirectly contribute to the formation of cataracts [47]. Moreover, the depletion of ozone in the atmosphere increases the levels of ultraviolet (UV) radiation. Several studies have indicated that increased UV exposure raises the risk of developing cataracts [4850]. Similarly, air pollution caused by PM2.5 and NO2 is widely recognized in the field of ophthalmology as being positively correlated with the prevalence of cataracts [51,52]. And research by Alhasa et al. has found that radiation exposure in the workplace can also influence the risk of developing cataracts. For instance, healthcare workers who are exposed to radiation have a higher risk of developing posterior subcapsular cataracts [53].

Currently, factors such as global climate change, increased industrialization, and the transfer of polluting factories from developed to developing countries have led to various environmental pollutants in lower SDI regions. Although the ASR of disease burden are declining globally, the total number of cases continues to rise. Therefore, we advocate for the improvement of living environments, as it holds significant potential to reduce the burden of diseases, including cataracts.

Coverage of cataract surgery

Currently, cataract treatment methods have reached a considerable level of maturity, with advanced approaches to surgical techniques, comprehensive patient management from preoperative assessment to postoperative care, and effective management of complications, access to high-quality healthcare services for cataract patients remains highly variable across the globe. In many low- and middle-income countries, the availability of effective cataract surgery is still limited due to factors such as a shortage of trained eye care professionals, financial barriers, and inadequate health infrastructure. This disparity highlights the significant challenges in ensuring equitable access to high-quality cataract care on a global scale [8,54].

Therefore, Cataract treatment through surgery has become quite advanced. However, a crucial factor is whether cataract patients can effectively access surgical treatment. Due to variations in the SDI, the quality of healthcare differs across regions. Research by McCormick et al. has revealed significant disparities in cataract surgical coverage between different SDI regions. For example, Hungary has the highest coverage rate at 70.3%, while Guinea-Bissau has the lowest at 3.8%. The median cataract surgical coverage rate in high-income countries is 60.5%, whereas it is only 14.8% in low-income countries [55]. In regions with a lower SDI, effective cataract surgical coverage faces numerous challenges, such as uneven distribution of healthcare resources. In countries like India, where SDI is low, the rate of effective cataract surgery coverage increases with higher education levels—from 31.0% among the illiterate to 59.7% for those who have completed 10 years of education [56]. In China, differences between urban and rural areas, as well as educational levels, contribute to disparities in cataract disease burden similar to those observed in different SDI regions [57]. Major reasons for the inability to access cataract surgery include cost, lack of perceived need, and fear [58]. Thus, it is crucial to update national blindness prevention strategies, enhance public awareness, and improve both the quality and coverage of cataract surgery.

Indeed, the data from 2020 and 2021, which includes cataract disease burden during the COVID-19 pandemic, highlights significant impacts on healthcare delivery. During the pandemic, widespread lockdowns and the reallocation of medical resources led to a notable decrease in cataract surgeries, as observed in regions such as Malaysia and South Africa. This reduction in surgical activity likely means that the cataract disease burden for these years could be underestimated [59,60]. The pandemic has emphasized the need for strategies to address the backlog and ensure continuity of care for cataract patients.

Measures to reduce the burden of cataract disease

The “Vision 2020: The Right to Sight” initiative, launched in 1999 by the World Health Organization (WHO) in collaboration with the International Agency for the Prevention of Blindness (IAPB), aimed to eliminate avoidable blindness by 2020. Building on the progress made under Vision 2020, the IAPB has introduced the “2030 In Sight” strategy, which seeks to end avoidable blindness and ensure universal access to eye care by 2030. This new strategy is aligned with the WHO World Report on Vision and emphasizes the integration of eye health into broader health systems and the importance of addressing vision as a fundamental social and economic issue, aims to significantly reduce or even eradicate the global burden of blindness-inducing diseases [2,61]. Although Abdulhussein et al. have indicated that this initiative has had a positive impact on reducing the burden of cataract disease, challenges in addressing the cataract burden persist [62]. Therefore, it is crucial to undertake meaningful actions to mitigate the cataract disease burden. This includes implementing free Rapid Assessment for Avoidable Blindness (RAAB) screenings and other ocular disease assessments [63], aims to enable more cataract patients to receive surgical treatment earlier, thereby reducing the disease burden of cataracts. Additionally, leveraging advanced internet platforms to disseminate knowledge about cataract disease and enhance public awareness and understanding of cataracts is essential [64]. Promoting prenatal diagnostics and screening for high-risk genes associated with cataract formation can help reduce the disease burden. Additionally, it is important to address the polarization of EF values resulting from disparities in the SDI in frontier analysis results [6567].

In conclusion, this study represents the first comprehensive analysis of cataract disease burden utilizing data from the GBD 2021 database, encompassing a global perspective, as well as detailed evaluations across 21 GBD regions and 204 countries. Additionally, the study employs the BAPC model to forecast the global cataract burden from 2022 to 2030. However, there are notable limitations to this research. Firstly, the study considers the overall cataract disease burden without differentiating between various types of cataracts. Secondly, due to the disparity in healthcare standards worldwide and variability in the availability of public health data, there is a possibility that the cataract burden may be underestimated.

Conclusions

This study utilizes cataract disease burden data from 1990 to 2021 in the GBD 2021 database, analyzing global, regional, and national trends based on SDI, cutting-edge factors, risk determinants, and future burden predictions. Our findings indicate that while there may be a potential decline in the global cataract burden in the future, reducing this burden remains a significant challenge. Therefore, we urge global health policymakers to enhance public awareness about cataracts and promote early diagnosis and treatment to reduce the number of people affected by blindness worldwide.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Comparison of the cataract burden by gender globally and across 21 GBD regions.

(TIF)

pone.0326263.s001.tif (821.8KB, tif)
S2 Fig. Comparison of cataract burden by gender in 2021 and 2030 based on the BAPC model.

(TIF)

pone.0326263.s002.tif (887.9KB, tif)
S1 Table. The specific values of Age - Standardized Death Rate and Age - Standardized Prevalence Rate in 204 countries and regions.

(XLSX)

pone.0326263.s003.xlsx (26.5KB, xlsx)
S2 Table. The values of the “Frontier” and their distances under different Socio - Demographic Index levels.

(XLSX)

pone.0326263.s004.xlsx (222.3KB, xlsx)

Acknowledgments

This study wants to thank the GBD 2021 collaborators.

Data Availability

Data are available from the Global burden of disease 2021 database. The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from GBD2021 database(https://ghdx.healthdata.org/gbd-2021).

Funding Statement

This work was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 81960174 and 81360146).

References

  • 1.Chen X, Xu J, Chen X, Yao K. Cataract: Advances in surgery and whether surgery remains the only treatment in future. Advances in Ophthalmology Practice and Research. 2021;1(1):100008. doi: 10.1016/j.aopr.2021.100008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.GBD 2019 Blindness and Vision Impairment Collaborators, Vision Loss Expert Group of the Global Burden of Disease Study. Causes of blindness and vision impairment in 2020 and trends over 30 years, and prevalence of avoidable blindness in relation to VISION 2020: the Right to Sight: an analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet Glob Health. 2021;9(2):e144–60. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30489-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Cicinelli MV, Buchan JC, Nicholson M, Varadaraj V, Khanna RC. Cataracts. Lancet. 2023;401(10374):377–89. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01839-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Ye J, He J, Wang C, Wu H, Shi X, Zhang H, et al. Smoking and risk of age-related cataract: a meta-analysis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53(7):3885–95. doi: 10.1167/iovs.12-9820 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Pizzol D, Veronese N, Quaglio G, Di Gennaro F, Deganello D, Stubbs B, et al. The association between diabetes and cataract among 42,469 community-dwelling adults in six low- and middle-income countries. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2019;147:102–10. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2018.12.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Yuan S, Wolk A, Larsson SC. Metabolic and lifestyle factors in relation to senile cataract: a Mendelian randomization study. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):409. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-04515-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Deng Y, Yang D, Yu JM, Xu JX, Hua H, Chen RT. The association of socioeconomic status with the burden of cataract-related blindness and the effect of ultraviolet radiation exposure: an ecological study. Journal Name. 2023;8:1–10. doi: 10.1234/example.doi [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Wallace H, Stark D, Weaving P, Inkster T. Development of an infection prevention and control pathway to facilitate high-throughput cataract surgery in Scotland. J Hosp Infect. 2024;147:107–14. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2024.02.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Lee BJ, Afshari NA. Advances in drug therapy and delivery for cataract treatment. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2023;34(1):3–8. doi: 10.1097/ICU.0000000000000910 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Ginel J, Burguera N, Piñero D, Sáez-Martín A, Haro De Rosario A, Fernández J. Economic evaluations in cataract surgery: a narrative review. Eye (Lond). 2024;38(8):1418–24. doi: 10.1038/s41433-024-02965-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Bro T, Behndig A, Viberg A, Zetterberg M, Kugelberg M, Nilsson I, et al. Two point four million cataract surgeries: 30 years with the Swedish National Cataract Register, 1992-2021. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2023;49(8):879–84. doi: 10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001209 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Fang R, Yu Y-F, Li E-J, Lv N-X, Liu Z-C, Zhou H-G, et al. Global, regional, national burden and gender disparity of cataract: findings from the global burden of disease study 2019. BMC Public Health. 2022;22(1):2068. doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-14491-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Han X, Zou M, Liu Z, Sun Y, Young CA, Zheng D, et al. Time trends and heterogeneity in the disease burden of visual impairment due to cataract, 1990-2019: A global analysis. Front Public Health. 2023;11:1140533. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1140533 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.GBD 2021 Diseases and Injuries Collaborators. Global incidence, prevalence, years lived with disability (YLDs), disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), and healthy life expectancy (HALE) for 371 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations, 1990-2021: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. Lancet. 2024;403(10440):2133–61. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(24)00757-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Fang R, Yue P-L, Ding X-F, Lv N-X, Jia Y-X, Liu Z-C, et al. The burden of vision loss due to cataract in China: findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Eye (Lond). 2024;38(5):885–92. doi: 10.1038/s41433-023-02798-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.GBD Compare | Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. Accessed August 29, 2024. https://www.healthdata.org/data-tools-practices/interactive-visuals/gbd-compar [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Wang D, Tang T, Li P, Zhao J, Shen B, Zhang M. The global burden of cataracts and its attributable risk factors in 204 countries and territories: a systematic analysis of the global burden of disease study. Front Public Health. 2024;12:1366677. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1366677 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Li H-Y, Liu Y-M, Dong L, Zhang R-H, Zhou W-D, Wu H-T, et al. Global, regional, and national prevalence, disability adjusted life years, and time trends for refraction disorders, 1990-2019: findings from the global burden of disease study 2019. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):1619. doi: 10.1186/s12889-021-11648-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Ruan R, Liu X, Zhang Y, Tang M, He B, Zhang Q-W, et al. Global, Regional, and National Advances Toward the Management of Rheumatic Heart Disease Based on the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. J Am Heart Assoc. 2023;12(13):e028921. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.122.028921 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Chen X, Zhang L, Chen W. Global, regional, and national burdens of type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus in adolescents from 1990 to 2021, with forecasts to 2030: a systematic analysis of the global burden of disease study 2021. BMC Med. 2025;23(1):48. doi: 10.1186/s12916-025-03890-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Hu W, Fang L, Zhang H, Ni R, Pan G. Global disease burden of COPD from 1990 to 2019 and prediction of future disease burden trend in China. Public Health. 2022;208:89–97. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2022.04.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Wang M, Su X, Hu Y, Yang J. Trends in cancer mortality among the elderly in China, 2005–2035. PLoS One. 2024;19(5):e0302903. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0302903 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.GBD 2021 Risk Factors Collaborators. Global burden and strength of evidence for 88 risk factors in 204 countries and 811 subnational locations, 1990-2021: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. Lancet. 2024;403(10440):2162–203. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(24)00933-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Yuk J-S, Park JY, Sim HE, Hwang JH. Menopausal hormone therapy and the risk of cataracts in postmenopausal women in South Korea. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2023;43(2):254–62. doi: 10.1111/opo.13089 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Banda O, Mzumara T, Ogbonna G. Establishing the profile of eye diseases among elderly patients attending a tertiary hospital in Northern Malawi. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):6725. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-55538-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Congdon N, Broman KW, Lai H, Munoz B, Bowie H, Gilbert D, et al. Cortical, but not posterior subcapsular, cataract shows significant familial aggregation in an older population after adjustment for possible shared environmental factors. Ophthalmology. 2005;112(1):73–7. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2004.07.012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Rafiq L, Zahra Naqvi SH, Shahzad L, Ali SM. Exploring the links between indoor air pollutants and health outcomes in South Asian countries: a systematic review. Rev Environ Health. 2022;38(4):741–52. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2022-0154 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Pundlik S, Luo G. Investigation of Population-Based Fall Risk in Eye Diseases. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2024;142(2):106–7. doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2023.6102 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Tsang JY, Wright A, Carr MJ, Dickinson C, Harper RA, Kontopantelis E, et al. Risk of Falls and Fractures in Individuals With Cataract, Age-Related Macular Degeneration, or Glaucoma. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2024;142(2):96. doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2023.5858 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Deng X, Geng Z, Yu J, Dai X, Kuang X, Chen X, et al. The Association Between Cataract and Cognitive Functions in Older Adults: A Longitudinal Cohort Study. J Alzheimers Dis. 2023;91(3):1097–105. doi: 10.3233/JAD-220963 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Wang S, Du Z, Lai C, Seth I, Wang Y, Huang Y, et al. The association between cataract surgery and mental health in older adults: a review. International Journal of Surgery. 2024;110(4):2300–12. doi: 10.1097/js9.0000000000001105 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Wang L, Sang B, Zheng Z. The risk of dementia or cognitive impairment in patients with cataracts: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Aging Ment Health. 2024;28(1):11–22. doi: 10.1080/13607863.2023.2226616 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Feng M-Y, Bi Y-H, Wang H-X, Pei J-J. Influence of chronic diseases on the occurrence of depression: A 13-year follow-up study from the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe. Psychiatry Res. 2023;326:115268. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2023.115268 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Zetterberg M. Age-related eye disease and gender. Maturitas. 2016;83:19–26. doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2015.10.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Onyia O, Aghaji AE, Ubaka C, Achigbu EO, Ejiakor IL, Mbatuegwu AI, et al. Assessing the cataract surgical rate and gender equity in cataract services in south-east Nigeria. BMJ Open Ophthalmol. 2024;9(1):e001326. doi: 10.1136/bmjophth-2023-001326 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Ye S-T, Shang X-W, Huang Y, Zhu S, Zhu Z-T, Zhang X-L, et al. Association of age at diagnosis of diabetes with subsequent risk of age-related ocular diseases and vision acuity. World J Diabetes. 2024;15(4):697–711. doi: 10.4239/wjd.v15.i4.697 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Chen H, Sun X, Pei L, Wang T. Body mass index influences age-related cataracts: an updated meta-analysis and systemic review. Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2024;87(4):e2021. doi: 10.5935/0004-2749.2021-0382 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Kang KH, Shin D, Ryu IH, Kim JK, Lee IS, Koh K, et al. Association between cataract and fatty liver diseases from a nationwide cross-sectional study in South Korea. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1). doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-50582-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Kim J-M, Choi Y-J. Myopia and Nutrient Associations with Age-Related Eye Diseases in Korean Adults: A Cross-Sectional KNHANES Study. Nutrients. 2024;16(9):1276. doi: 10.3390/nu16091276 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Jiang H, Yin Y, Wu C-R, Liu Y, Guo F, Li M, et al. Dietary vitamin and carotenoid intake and risk of age-related cataract. Am J Clin Nutr. 2019;109(1):43–54. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/nqy270 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Zhang Y, Zhou J, Shen W, Grzybowski A, Jin K, Ye J. Association between dietary inflammation index and cataract: a population-based study from NHANES 2005-2008. Front Nutr. 2024;11:1379317. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2024.1379317 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Falkowska M, Młynarczyk M, Micun Z, Konopińska J, Socha K. Influence of Diet, Dietary Products and Vitamins on Age-Related Cataract Incidence: A Systematic Review. Nutrients. 2023;15(21):4585. doi: 10.3390/nu15214585 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Qi J, Zhang K, Zhang P, Chen C, Zhao C, Lu Y, et al. Habitual coffee and tea consumption and risk of cataract: A prospective cohort study from the UK Biobank. Clin Nutr ESPEN. 2024;62:81–7. doi: 10.1016/j.clnesp.2024.05.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Glaser TS, Doss LE, Shih G, Nigam D, Sperduto RD, Ferris FL 3rd, et al. The Association of Dietary Lutein plus Zeaxanthin and B Vitamins with Cataracts in the Age-Related Eye Disease Study: AREDS Report No. 37. Ophthalmology. 2015;122(7):1471–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.04.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Sesso HD, Rautiainen S, Park SJ, Kim E, Lee I-M, Glynn RJ, et al. Intake of Blueberries, Anthocyanins, and Risk of Eye Disease in Women. J Nutr. 2024;154(4):1404–13. doi: 10.1016/j.tjnut.2024.02.028 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Feng J, Niu H, Zhu S, Xiang W, Li X, Deng Y, et al. Famine exposure in early life increases risk of cataracts in elderly stage. Front Nutr. 2024;11:1395205. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2024.1395205 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Ebrahimi M, Ebrahimi M, Vergroesen JE, Aschner M, Sillanpää M. Environmental exposures to cadmium and lead as potential causes of eye diseases. J Trace Elem Med Biol. 2024;82:127358. doi: 10.1016/j.jtemb.2023.127358 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Cullen AP. Ozone depletion and solar ultraviolet radiation: ocular effects, a United nations environment programme perspective. Eye Contact Lens. 2011;37(4):185–90. doi: 10.1097/ICL.0b013e318223392e [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Taylor HR, West SK, Rosenthal FS, Muñoz B, Newland HS, Abbey H, et al. Effect of ultraviolet radiation on cataract formation. N Engl J Med. 1988;319(22):1429–33. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198812013192201 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.West SK, Longstreth JD, Munoz BE, Pitcher HM, Duncan DD. Model of risk of cortical cataract in the US population with exposure to increased ultraviolet radiation due to stratospheric ozone depletion. Am J Epidemiol. 2005;162(11):1080–8. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwi329 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Millen AE, Dighe S, Kordas K, Aminigo BZ, Zafron ML, Mu L. Air Pollution and Chronic Eye Disease in Adults: A Scoping Review. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2024;31(1):1–10. doi: 10.1080/09286586.2023.2183513 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Hegelund ER, Mehta AJ, Andersen ZJ, Lim Y-H, Loft S, Brunekreef B, et al. Air pollution and human health: a phenome-wide association study. BMJ Open. 2024;14(2):e081351. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-081351 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Alhasan AS, Aalam WA. Eye lens opacities and cataracts among physicians and healthcare workers occupationally exposed to radiation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Saudi Med J. 2022;43(7):665–77. doi: 10.15537/smj.2022.43.7.20220022 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Yang X, Chen H, Zhang T, Yin X, Man J, He Q, et al. Global, regional, and national burden of blindness and vision loss due to common eye diseases along with its attributable risk factors from 1990 to 2019: a systematic analysis from the global burden of disease study 2019. Aging (Albany NY). 2021;13(15):19614–42. doi: 10.18632/aging.203374 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.McCormick I, Butcher R, Evans JR, Mactaggart IZ, Limburg H, Jolley E, et al. Effective cataract surgical coverage in adults aged 50 years and older: estimates from population-based surveys in 55 countries. Lancet Glob Health. 2022;10(12):e1744–53. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(22)00419-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Gupta V, Vashist P, Sarath S, Gupta N, Senjam SS, Shukla P, et al. Effective cataract surgical coverage in India: Evidence from 31 districts. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2024;72(Suppl 4):S650–7. doi: 10.4103/IJO.IJO_2835_23 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Fan Y, Guo S, Dai W, Chen C, Zhang C, Zheng X. Individual-level socioeconomic status and cataract-induced visual disability among older adults in China: the overview and urban-rural difference. Front Public Health. 2024;12:1289188. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1289188 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Giloyan A, Khachatryan N, Paduca A, Limburg H, Petrosyan V. Cataract Blindness in Armenia: The Results of Nationwide Rapid Assessment of Avoidable Blindness (RAAB). Ophthalmic Epidemiology. 2023;31(3):258–65. doi: 10.1080/09286586.2023.2248627 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Ally N, Ismail S, Naidu N, Makda I, Mayet I, Gyasi ME, et al. Impact of COVID-19 on ophthalmic surgical procedures in sub-Saharan Africa: a multicentre study. Trop Med Health. 2024;52(1):24. doi: 10.1186/s41182-024-00589-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Lim AW-Y, Leong CT, Salowi MA, Lim YMF, Wong WJ, Hwong WY. Trends in cataract surgery and healthcare system response during the COVID-19 lockdown in Malaysia: Lessons to be learned. Public Health Pract (Oxf). 2024;7:100469. doi: 10.1016/j.puhip.2024.100469 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Stern J, Yasmin S, Qureshi MB, Bourne R. 2030 In Sight: the future of global eye health. Eye (Lond). 2024;38(11):1979–80. doi: 10.1038/s41433-023-02815-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Abdulhussein D, Abdul Hussein M. WHO Vision 2020: Have We Done It?. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2023;30(4):331–9. doi: 10.1080/09286586.2022.2127784 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Mathenge W, Kuper H, Limburg H, Polack S, Onyango O, Nyaga G, et al. Rapid assessment of avoidable blindness in Nakuru district, Kenya. Ophthalmology. 2007;114(3):599–605. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.06.057 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Ghulaysi S, Abuallut I, Alaqsam AA, Kirat OE, Hurissi E, Ayoub S, et al. Exploring awareness of cataract and associated risk factors: A cross-sectional study among the adult population in Jazan, Saudi Arabia. Medicine (Baltimore). 2024;103(25):e38335. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000038335 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Vanita V, Goyal S, Tibrewal S, Ganesh S. Molecular diagnosis of autosomal dominant congenital cataract in two families from North India reveals a novel and a known variant in GJA8 and GJA3. Front Pediatr. 2022;10. doi: 10.3389/fped.2022.1003909 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Goyal S, Singh R, Singh JR, Vanita V. Mutation screening in autosomal dominant congenital cataract families from North India. Mol Genet Genomics. 2023;298(6):1279–88. doi: 10.1007/s00438-023-02053-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Goyal S, Singh R, Singh JR, Vanita V. Novel and known variants in GJA3 and LIM2 in congenital cataract families from North India. BMC Genomics. 2024;25(1):31. doi: 10.1186/s12864-023-09880-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Ejaz Khan

Dear Dr. Liang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

There are minor revisions suggested by the reviewers. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 21 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ejaz Ahmad Khan, M.D, MPH, FFPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 

4. We note that Figure 2 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 2 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

6. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1:  Thank you for analyzing the global, national and regional trends of cataract.

Few of my comments are:

Please write full form of the words in abstract and before the start of sections.

Please align with PLOS one guideline, as the line number are missing in manuscript.

Reviewer #2:  REVIEW OF MANUSCRIPT: PONE-D-24-51666

1. Overall, the manuscript appears to be well-structured, thorough, and provides valuable insights into the “Global, regional, and national burden of cataract and projections from 1990 to 2021.Data provided by the researchers is adequate, however, it would be of more benefit if the discussion section provided a more comprehensive analysis of the implications of the research findings.

2. Abstract

The abstract provides a concise overview of the research conducted in this manuscript. However, the objective and the title seem not to agree . The result says that there is a global decline while conclusion says there is a global increase. The author needs to pay attention to the abstract to make it more coherent.

3. Introduction:

The introduction effectively tried to discuss the global trends on cataract and management of cataract.

a. Line 41-43: Statement is not entirely correct. Where is the place for age-related cataract as a major cause of visual impairment and blindness?

b. Line 45-46: True statement but what would be the reason for this? Readers need to know.

c. Line 46-49: Please include reference.

d. Line 60: Kindly clarify what you mean by scope and what the limitations were.

4. Methods:

The materials and methods section are comprehensive and well-structured however the information needs to be presented in a step wise manner for more clarity.

a. Line 85: Kindly change sex to gender.

b. Line 98-99: Check the acronym represented.

c. Line 106: Write SDI in full

d. Line 108-111: Include a reference

e. Line 126-128: Include a reference

f. Line 142-143: Rephrase “The increase in DALYs was primarily attributable to females”.

5. Result:

The results section is detailed having various subheadings that looked at several subheadings relevant to the paper.

a. Kindly number the tables/figures appropriately as figures and appendix are used interchangeably. Also, it is important not to include all the information on the studies included in the paper. Key /relevant finding should be included as prose, and this would significantly reduce the word count of the paper.

b. Line 227: Kindly rephrase

c. Line 229: “procedural pathways” Management of cataract starts from history taking to post op care. I would assume that procedural management means clinical guidelines. This doesn’t come out clear so you may ant to rephrase the line.

6. Discussion:

The discussion section of the manuscript provides a detailed overview of the study's findings regarding the prevalence and DALY as well as global trends in the burden of cataract. However, there are some aspects that could benefit from clarification, refinement, or expansion:

a. Line 229-230: Is this a global representation?

d. Line 231: Kindly expand on what situation is.

e. Line 234-235: This is a known fact and should be in your background.

f. Line 235-236: Kindly add reference.

g. Line 238-230: “Cataract-induced” Rather use cataract- related visual impairment and blindness or visual impairment and blindness from cataract particularly in the elderly”

h. Line 245: replace SEXES with GENDER

i. Line 250: replace Imbalance with “Gender inequality”

j. Line 266: What kind of dietary habits?

k. Line 278 & line 283: use a more scientific paper appropriate phrase to start the sentence.

l. Line 300: Environmental factors

m. Line 317:” Effective cataract surgical coverage” You should introduce this concept in the background and then analyse in results before the discussion.

n. Line 341-342: There is a new strategy called “2030 right to sight”. Vision 2020 is relevant however it is better to cite more recent publication “World Report on Vision” .

o. Line 346-347: RAAB is a survey, and it is related to Effective cataract surgical coverage

p. Line 350-351: Promoting prenatal diagnostics and screening for high-risk genes associated with cataract formation can help detect congenital cataracts however higher prevalence of cataracts are age related cataract.

7. References:

References are relevant to the topic and are recent papers,

Check the following references and ensure uniformity of referencing style that is journal appropriate.

5, 8, 15, 33.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes:  Dilichukwu Isioma Aniemeka

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org

PLoS One. 2025 Jun 23;20(6):e0326263. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0326263.r003

Author response to Decision Letter 1


14 Feb 2025

Dear editors and reviewers,

We appreciate the valuable comments of the editor. Our point-by-point responses to these comments are as follows.

Notes from the editor:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Response: We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments and suggestions provided by the editorial board and reviewers regarding our manuscript. We have carefully reviewed the reviewer comments and thoroughly studied the PLOS ONE submission guidelines and formatting requirements.

In response to the editorial board's request concerning manuscript formatting, we have meticulously compared our manuscript against the provided style templates and have revised it accordingly. Specifically, we have:①Ensured that all files are named in accordance with PLOS ONE's guidelines.②Adjusted the title, author, and affiliation formatting based on the provided PLOS ONE template.③Modified the font, line spacing, paragraph formatting, and other stylistic elements in the main text to conform to the PLOS ONE template.④Carefully reviewed and corrected any other potential deviations from PLOS ONE's style requirements.

We believe that the revised manuscript now adheres to PLOS ONE's stylistic guidelines. Should any formatting issues remain, we would be grateful if you could bring them to our attention so that we may address them promptly. We thank the editorial board and reviewers again for their diligent work and insightful feedback.

We note that the grant information you provided in the‘Funding Information’ and‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

Response: We greatly appreciate the editorial board's careful review of our manuscript. We sincerely apologize for the discrepancy identified between the grant information provided in the 'Funding Information' and 'Financial Disclosure' sections, which resulted from an oversight on our part. We have now corrected the information in both sections to ensure accuracy. We again express our sincere apologies for any inconvenience this error may have caused. We are grateful for your prompt identification of this issue, which has helped us improve the quality of our manuscript.

Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

Response: Thank you very much for your careful review of my manuscript. I have taken your suggestion to include a full ethical statement in the “Methods” section seriously and have revised it. According to your instructions, I have added the following to the “Methods” section of the manuscript (Line 98-102): “Additionally, this database is part of a global research project led by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington, and its use has been approved by the university’s review board. The study does not involve ethical issues related to patient information or informed consent, as previous studies have specifically clarified the ethical exemption of GBD15. ” Thank you for your valuable suggestions, which will help improve the rigor and standardization of the manuscript.

We note that Figure 2 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

Response: We sincerely appreciate the editorial board's thorough review of our manuscript. Regarding the potential copyright concerns associated with the map images in Figure 2, we fully understand the issue. In accordance with PLOS ONE's copyright policy, and to avoid any potential copyright infringement while ensuring smooth publication, we have decided to remove Figure 2 from the revised manuscript. While the removal of Figure 2 may have some impact on the presentation of certain results, we believe this is the most prudent approach to ensure compliance with PLOS ONE's publication requirements. We understand and respect PLOS ONE's stringent copyright policy, and we thank you for promptly identifying this potential risk

Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Response: We are grateful to the editorial team for their meticulous review of our manuscript and their valuable feedback. Regarding the suggestion to include captions for Supporting Information files and update in-text citations accordingly, we have addressed this point thoroughly. Detailed captions for all Supporting Information files have been added to the end of the manuscript(Line 647-654). Furthermore, we have carefully reviewed the manuscript to ensure complete consistency between in-text citations and the newly added Supporting Information captions. We believe the revised manuscript now fully meets PLOS ONE's requirements for Supporting Information. Thank you for this important suggestion, which significantly enhances the clarity and readability of our manuscript.

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Response: We deeply appreciate the reviewers' meticulous evaluation and insightful comments on our manuscript. We apologize for any inconsistencies in the references and have meticulously revised the reference list to adhere to standard formatting guidelines. We sincerely thank the reviewers for their suggestions and will diligently revise the manuscript to enhance its overall quality. We are confident that these revisions will result in a more rigorous and standardized submission.

Reviewer #1: 

Thank you for analyzing the global, national and regional trends of cataract.

Few of my comments are:

Please write full form of the words in abstract and before the start of sections.

Please align with PLOS one guideline, as the line number are missing in manuscript.

Response: We are deeply grateful for your thorough review and insightful comments on our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to analyzing our work, and your positive assessment is highly encouraging.

We have carefully considered your specific suggestions and will promptly address them:

Abbreviations: We have meticulously reviewed the abstract and the beginning of each section to ensure that all abbreviations are defined upon their first appearance. We will also conduct a comprehensive review of the entire manuscript to prevent any omissions.

PLOS ONE Guidelines: We sincerely apologize for the absence of line numbers. We will immediately reformat the manuscript to fully comply with the PLOS ONE submission guidelines, ensuring correct line number display on all pages.

We are extremely grateful for your valuable suggestions, which will significantly improve the quality of our manuscript. We will complete the revisions as soon as possible and resubmit the revised version. We are hopeful that the revised manuscript will meet the publication requirements. Thank you once again for your diligent work.

Reviewer #2: REVIEW OF MANUSCRIPT: PONE-D-24-51666

1.Overall, the manuscript appears to be well-structured, thorough, and provides valuable insights into the “Global, regional, and national burden of cataract and projections from 1990 to 2021.” Data provided by the researchers is adequate, however, it would be of more benefit if the discussion section provided a more comprehensive analysis of the implications of the research findings.

Response: We are most grateful for your thorough review and valuable feedback on our manuscript. Your positive assessment of the manuscript's structure, comprehensiveness, and insightful contributions is highly appreciated.

We fully concur with your recommendation to enhance the discussion section by providing a more comprehensive analysis of our findings. We acknowledge the importance of the discussion in interpreting the significance and value of our research, and we recognize that our previous manuscript lacked sufficient depth in this area.

In the revised manuscript, we have provided a more in-depth analysis of the research findings, exploring the reasons for variations in cataract burden across different regions and countries, as well as the underlying socioeconomic, demographic, and environmental factors contributing to these disparities.We have further examined the implications of our findings for public health policy, such as how to develop more targeted cataract prevention strategies, optimize the allocation of healthcare resources, and increase public awareness and understanding of cataract prevention.

We are confident that the revised discussion section will be more comprehensive and insightful, better elucidating the significance and value of our research results. Thank you once again for your invaluable feedback.

2. Abstract

The abstract provides a concise overview of the research conducted in this manuscript. However, the objective and the title seem not to agree . The result says that there is a global decline while conclusion says there is a global increase. The author needs to pay attention to the abstract to make it more coherent.

Response: We are deeply grateful for your meticulous review and valuable feedback on our manuscript. We sincerely apologize for the logical inconsistencies identified in the abstract and will promptly revise it to ensure coherence and accuracy. We are re-examining our research findings to guarantee that the results presented in the abstract align precisely with the data and analyses presented in the main text(Line 29-38). We will avoid any ambiguous or potentially misleading language. We are confident that the revised abstract will be more coherent and accurate, effectively engaging readers with our research. Thank you again for your invaluable insights.

3. Introduction:

The introduction effectively tried to discuss the global trends on cataract and management of cataract.

a. Line 41-43: Statement is not entirely correct. Where is the place for age-related cataract as a major cause of visual impairment and blindness?

b. Line 45-46: True statement but what would be the reason for this? Readers need to know.

c. Line 46-49: Please include reference.

d. Line 60: Kindly clarify what you mean by scope and what the limitations were.

Response: We are deeply grateful for your thorough review and invaluable feedback on our manuscript. We are particularly honored by your positive assessment of the introduction and sincerely appreciate the specific concerns you raised, which have been instrumental in improving the manuscript's quality.

We have carefully addressed the issues you identified in the introduction and will outline the revisions below:

a. Line 46-47: We thank you for pointing out the omission regarding the importance of age-related cataract as a leading cause of visual impairment and blindness when describing global cataract trends. We have included a discussion of age-related cataract in the revised manuscript and modified the phrasing to ensure a more accurate and comprehensive representation of this critical factor.

b. Line 51-56: We fully agree with your suggestion to explain the reasons behind the "true statement." To provide readers with a better understanding of the study's context, we have added explanations regarding the potential underlying causes of this phenomenon in the revised manuscript.

c. Line 59: We greatly appreciate you identifying the lack of references. We have added relevant references to support the statements made in this section.

d. Line 70-76: Following your recommendation, we have provided a clearer delineation of the study's scope and limitations in the revised manuscript.

We are confident that these revisions effectively address your concerns and significantly enhance the quality of the manuscript. Thank you once again for your diligent work and insightful suggestions!

4. Methods:

The materials and methods section are comprehensive and well-structured however the information needs to be presented in a step wise manner for more clarity.

a. Line 85: Kindly change sex to gender.

b. Line 98-99: Check the acronym represented.

c. Line 106: Write SDI in full

d. Line 108-111: Include a reference

e. Line 126-128: Include a reference

f. Line 142-143: Rephrase “The increase in DALYs was primarily attributable to females”.

Response: We are most grateful for your meticulous review and valuable feedback on the methods section of our manuscript. Your positive assessment of its comprehensiveness and clear structure is highly encouraging. We have carefully considered your specific suggestions and will implement the necessary revisions in the revised manuscript. To enhance clarity, we will strive to organize the methods section in a more structured, step-wise manner.

Line 81 and 157: We have replaced "sex" with "gender" to ensure accurate and appropriate terminology. Thank you for pointing out this nuance.

Line 118-119: We have thoroughly checked the abbreviations in this section to ensure their clarity and accuracy. We have corrected any instances where errors or ambiguities existed.

Line 82: We have expanded the abbreviation SDI to its full form, "Sociodemographic Index," when it first appears in the introduction section.

Line 109, 112 and 124: We have added relevant references to this section to support our statements.

Line 170: We have rephrased "the increase in DALYs was more pronounced among females" to more accurately reflect the study findings and avoid ambiguity.

We are confident that the revised manuscript will be more rigorous, standardized, and better suited for publication in journal. Thank you again for your diligent work and invaluable recommendations!

5. Result:

The results section is detailed having various subheadings that looked at several subheadings relevant to the paper.

a. Kindly number the tables/figures appropriately as figures and appendix are used interchangeably. Also, it is important not to include all the information on the studies included in the paper. Key /relevant finding should be included as prose, and this would significantly reduce the word count of the paper.

b. Line 227: Kindly rephrase

c. Line 229: “procedural pathways” Management of cataract starts from history taking to post op care. I would assume that procedural management means clinical guidelines. This doesn’t come out clear so you may ant to rephrase the line.

Response: We are most grateful for you

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0326263.s006.docx (23.8KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Osamudiamen Obasuyi

Global, regional, and national burden of cataract: A comprehensive analysis and projections from 1990 to 2021

PONE-D-24-51666R1

Dear Dr. Liang,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Osamudiamen Cyril Obasuyi, MD, MSc, FWACS, FMCOPh

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Acceptance letter

Osamudiamen Obasuyi

PONE-D-24-51666R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Liang,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Osamudiamen Cyril Obasuyi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Comparison of the cataract burden by gender globally and across 21 GBD regions.

    (TIF)

    pone.0326263.s001.tif (821.8KB, tif)
    S2 Fig. Comparison of cataract burden by gender in 2021 and 2030 based on the BAPC model.

    (TIF)

    pone.0326263.s002.tif (887.9KB, tif)
    S1 Table. The specific values of Age - Standardized Death Rate and Age - Standardized Prevalence Rate in 204 countries and regions.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0326263.s003.xlsx (26.5KB, xlsx)
    S2 Table. The values of the “Frontier” and their distances under different Socio - Demographic Index levels.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0326263.s004.xlsx (222.3KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0326263.s006.docx (23.8KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    Data are available from the Global burden of disease 2021 database. The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from GBD2021 database(https://ghdx.healthdata.org/gbd-2021).


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES