Table 3.
Comparative analysis for results and criteria of URE, UREN and visual impairment between our and others populational surveys
| SURVEY (%) | URE | Criteria | UREN | Criteria | Low vision | Criteria | Blind | Criteria |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| *Ferraz et al., 2014 São Paulo State, Brazil |
13.8 |
Dif BCVA ≥ 0.15 - NCVA ≥ 0.15 |
6.5 |
Dif BCVA > 0.5 - NCVA > 0.5) |
9.8 |
1.3 ≤ VA < 0.5 |
4.1 |
VA < 1.3 |
| Ramke et al., 2012 [19] Timor-Leste, Afrique |
3.7 |
NCVA < 6/18 ≥ 6/18 with pinhole |
9.6 |
VA < 20/40 Enhancement 2 lines |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Brian et al., 2011 [18] Figi, Japan |
10.3 |
Presenting corrected vision ≥ 6/18 |
4.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Uribe et al., 2011 [9] Tucson/Nogales, USA |
22.57 |
Enhancement 2 lines |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Barnes et al., 2011 [21] Ta’u Island, Samoa, USA |
- |
- |
- |
- |
10.5 |
6/60 ≤ VA < 6/18 |
4.8 |
VA < 6/60 |
| Schellini et al., 2009 [12] Botucatu Eye Study, Brazil |
- |
- |
5.5 |
Dif BCVA ≥ 20/60 -NCVA ≥ 20/60) |
5.2 |
20/400 ≤ VA < 20/60 |
2.2 |
VA <20/400 |
| Varma et al., 2008 [16] La Puente, California |
15.1 |
Enhancement 2 lines |
8.9 |
Dif BCVA ≥ 20/40 - NCVA ≥ 20/40) |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Ntim-Amponsah, 2007 [15] Gana, Afrique |
11.9 |
Enhancement 2 lines |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Ramke et al., 2007 [17] Timor-Leste, Afrique |
- |
- |
11.7 |
Dif BCVA ≥ 6/18 - NCVA ≥ 6/18) |
- |
6/60 ≤ VA < 6/18 |
- |
VA < 6/60 |
| Dandona et al., 2002 [20] Andhra Pradesh, Índia |
- |
- |
4.49 |
Dif BCVA ≥ 6/12 - NCVA ≥ 6/12) |
- |
VA < 6/12 |
- |
- |
| Thiagalingam et al., 2002 [11] Blue Montains, Australia | 10.2 | VA < 6/9 Enhancement 2 lines | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Note: *Ferraz et al.,2014 correspond to the present study. VA: 6/120 Sn = 20/400 Sn = 1.3 logMAR; 6/60 Sn = 20/200 Sn = 1.0 logMAR; 6/18 Sn = 20/60 Sn = 0.5 logMAR; 20/40 Sn = 0.3 logMAR; 6/9 Sn = 20/30 Sn = 0.18 logMAR.