Table 5.

Population-based studies reporting effective refractive error coverage

	Method	Age group, years	Effective refractive error coverage (95% CI)*
Eritrea (Chan et al, 2013)	Subnational; RARE	15–50	22·2% (16·7–28·5)
Nigeria (Ezelum et al, 2011)	National eye health survey	≥40	3·4% (2·3– 4·4)
Tanzania (Mashayo et al, 2015)	Subnational; RARE	≥15	1·7% (0–3·3)
South Africa (Naidoo et al, 2016)	Subnational; RARE	15–35	51·4% (28·1–74·7)
Uganda (Nsubuga et al, 2016)	Subnational; RARE	15–50	6·0% (1·7–10·2)
Mozambique (Lougham et al, 2015)	Subnational; RARE	15–50	0·0%
Colombia (Casas Luque et al, 2019)	Subnational; RARE	≥15	50·9%
Iran (Fotouhi et al, 2006)	Subnational eye health survey	≥5	66·0%
Bangladesh (Bourne et al, 2004)	National eye health survey†	≥30	25·2%
Timor-Leste (Ramke et al, 2007)	Subnational; Modified RACSS‡	≥40	15·7%
Pakistan (Shah et al, 2008)	National eye health survey	≥30	15·1%
Australia (Foreman et al, 2017)	National eye health survey†	≥40	93·5% (92·0–94·8) for non-Indigenous; 82·2% (78·6–85·3) for Indigenous Australians

References can be found in appendix 1 (p 104). RACSS=Rapid Assessment of Cataract Surgical Services. RARE=Rapid Assessment of Refractive Error.

^*95% CI given if reported.

^†An assumption of need, because the uncorrected visual acuity measurement was not given.

^‡Used a threshold of 6/18 (not 6/12) to define refractive error.