Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 Jul 21;17(7):e0270065. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270065

The association of sun exposure, ultraviolet radiation effects and other risk factors for pterygium (the SURE RISK for pterygium study) in geographically diverse adult (≥40 years) rural populations of India -3rd report of the ICMR-EYE SEE study group

Radhika Tandon 1,*,#, Praveen Vashist 1,#, Noopur Gupta 1, Vivek Gupta 1, Saumya Yadav 1, Dipali Deka 2, Sachchidanand Singh 3, K Vishwanath 4, G V S Murthy 5,6
Editor: Muralidhar M Kulkarni7
PMCID: PMC9302760  PMID: 35862365

Abstract

Purpose

To determine the prevalence and risk factors for pterygium in geographically diverse regions of India.

Methods

A population-based, cross-sectional multicentric study was conducted in adults aged ≥40 years in plains, hilly and coastal regions of India. All participants underwent a detailed questionnaire-based assessment for sun exposure, usage of sun protective measures, exposure to indoor smoke, and smoking. Detailed ocular and systemic examinations were performed. Pterygium was diagnosed and graded clinically by slit-lamp examination. Association of pterygium with sociodemographic, ophthalmological, and systemic parameters was assessed. Physical environmental parameters for the study period were estimated.

Results

Of the 12,021 eligible subjects, 9735 (81% response rate) participated in the study. The prevalence of pterygium in any eye was 13.2% (95% CI: 12.5%-13.9%), and bilateral pterygium was 6.7% (95% CI: 6.2–7.2). The prevalence increased with age (<0.001) irrespective of sex and was highest in those aged 60–69 years (15.8%). The prevalence was highest in coastal (20.3%), followed by plains (11.2%) and hilly regions (9.1%). On multi-logistic regression, pterygium was positively associated with coastal location (P<0.001), illiteracy (P = 0.037), increasing lifetime sun exposure (P<0.001), and negatively associated with BMI ≥25 kg/m2 (P = 0.009).

Conclusion

Pterygium prevalence is high in the rural Indian population. The association of pterygium with several potentially modifiable risk factors reflects its multifactorial etiology and provides targets for preventive measures.

Introduction

Pterygium is a common ocular disorder characterized by a ‘triangular encroachment of bulbar conjunctival tissue onto the cornea’. The earliest mention of pterygium can be dated back to the ancient texts by Susruta Samhita and Hippocrates [1, 2]. Since then, extensive epidemiological studies have been undertaken in an attempt to understand the etiopathogenesis of pterygium and to identify its risk factors [38]. Pterygium was included in the World Health Organization’s priority eye conditions due to their impact on vision, quality of life and burden on healthcare systems [9]. Hence, appropriate strategies need to be implemented along with generation of evidence-based epidemiological data for detailed planning, monitoring and evaluation of interventions for this important public health problem.

Although several risk factors, including geographic location and climate, have been studied, excessive and prolonged sunlight exposure, particularly ultraviolet (UV) radiation, remains the most important [10, 11]. Apart from the geophysical elements, several socioeconomic, lifestyle, and systemic factors have been hypothesized to play either a direct or indirect role in the pathogenesis of pterygium. India is a large country with diverse geographical and climatic conditions ranging from tropical in the south to temperate and alpine in the Himalayan north. Variations in socioeconomic status and lifestyle patterns exist across locations. Hence, the current study was planned to determine and compare the prevalence of pterygium in multicentric geographically diverse locations of India including populations from plains, hilly and coastal areas and explore the interplay of risk factors in its pathogenesis.

Materials and methods

A multicentric, population-based, cross-sectional study was conducted at three geographically diverse locations in the rural Indian population between 2010 and 2016 in individuals aged ≥40 years [12, 13]. The three study sites were diligently chosen to represent plains, hilly and coastal areas of the country. Gurugram district, Haryana State of National Capital Region (NCR) Delhi was chosen as representative for northern plains (henceforth referred to as Delhi NCR). The study in north-eastern hills was conducted at Kamrup district located adjacent to Guwahati, the capital of Assam (henceforth referred to as Guwahati). Prakasam district on the eastern coast line of Andhra Pradesh State was chosen to represent the southern coastal region. The study adhered to the Declaration of Helsinki. The study was approved by Institute Ethics Committee, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India (P-16/04.08.2009); Indian Institute of Public Health, Hyderabad, India (33/2011–08–08); and Regional Institute of Ophthalmology, Guwahati, India (MC/190/2007/ 1098–23.02.2010). Written informed consent was obtained from all participants before enrolment in the study.

Participant recruitment and screening

The selection and recruitment of participants along with protocol for detailed ophthalmological and systemic examination has been previously described in detail [12, 13]. To summarize, house visits were conducted by a trained health worker in the randomly selected clusters, and house members were interviewed using a structured questionnaire schedule. Eligible participants (≥40 years) were invited to come for a detailed ophthalmic examination at a local indoor clinic set up at the study site.

All ophthalmic examinations were carried out by an ophthalmologist. A portable slit-lamp was used for anterior segment examination. Pterygium was identified as a triangular fleshy mass extending from bulbar conjunctiva and encroaching onto the cornea. Pterygium was graded clinically depending on the extent of corneal involvement by the head of pterygium; Grade I—between limbus and a point midway between limbus and pupillary margin, Grade II—between a point midway between limbus and pupillary margin and pupillary margin (nasal pupillary margin in the case of nasal pterygium and temporal margin in the case of temporal pterygium) and Grade III—crossing pupillary margin [14]. Pterygium was labelled as double-headed in the cases with both nasal and temporal involvement. The systemic examination included measurement of height, weight, random blood sugar and blood pressure [12, 13].

Conjunctival Ultraviolet Autofluorescence (CUVAF) imaging system

A custom-built camera system was used for recording CUVAF images as per previously described specifications [15]. A height adjustable table was equipped with a subject headrest, camera positioning assembly, digital single-lens reflex camera, macro lens, and filtered electronic flash. Three consecutive pictures of nasal and temporal region of each eye were captured, and the image with best clarity was selected for further assessment. Images were saved in RGB format at the D100 settings of JPEG (1:4 compression). The autofluorescence area in mm2 on UV autofluorescence photographs was calculated using ImageJ software by two experienced graders masked by clinical findings. In eyes where multiple discrete areas of AF were present, each area was calculated separately, and the total area was represented as summation of these.

Sun exposure and climatic parameters

The lifetime effective sun exposure was calculated for every individual using the formula based on the Melbourne visual impairment project model [16]. Satellite-based data was used for the long-term UVA (315–400 nm), UVB (280–315 nm), and aerosol optical depth (AOD) values at each three locations. In addition, meteorological data for humidity, precipitation, temperature, wind speed, and air pollutants were also obtained for the three locations [12, 13].

Statistical analysis

Double entry of all data was done in a Microsoft Access™ database to avoid transcription errors. Data was analyzed using Stata 13 (Stata- Corp, College Station, TX). Participants with incomplete information on sun exposure or ocular examination were excluded. The compiled data on Microsoft Excel spreadsheet (Microsoft, Redmond, WA) was analysed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software (version 20; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY). All study participants were categorized into quintiles based on the lifetime effective sun exposure. Pearson chi-square test, t-test and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used for data that was categorical, continuous, and non-parametric continuous respectively. Risk factor comparisons were performed within-site and for combined data. P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Continuous variables were assessed and summarized using mean (standard deviation). Categorical variables were assessed using chi-squared test. Non-normal continuous variables were assessed using the Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney rank-sum test.

Results

Of the 12,021 eligible subjects enumerated at the three study sites, 9735 individuals (81% response rate) ≥40 years of age underwent detailed risk factor analysis and clinical assessment for pterygium (Delhi NCR- 3,595; Guwahati- 3,231; Prakasam- 2,909) (Fig 1). Socio-demographic and baseline clinical characteristics of participants of the ICMR- EYE SEE study have been previously reported in detail [12, 13]. The climatic parameters during the conduct of the study at each of the three study locations have also been highlighted [12, 13].

Fig 1. Flowchart depicting participant enrolment and study process.

Fig 1

The overall prevalence of pterygium in either eye was 13.2% (95% CI: 12.5%-13.9%; n = 1287/9735), of which 50.7% cases were bilateral (Table 1). Pterygium was located nasally in 94.7% (n = 1837) of eyes, and double head pterygium was seen in 2.2% (n = 43) of the eyes. The extent of involvement was found to be grade 1 in 905 eyes (46.6%), grade 2 in 944 eyes (48.7%), and grade 3 in 59 eyes (3.1%). A rising trend of prevalence was observed with increasing age and the highest prevalence was observed in 60–69 years age group (15.8%) (Table 1). Males and females had similar prevalence (13.4% vs. 13.1%) (p = 0.636) overall and at across all age groups (Table 1). A significant difference was observed between the prevalence of pterygium at three study locations (p<0.001). Prakasam had the highest prevalence (20.3%; CI 18.8–21.7) followed by Delhi NCR (11.2%; CI 10.1–12.2) and Guwahati (9.1%; CI 8.1–10.1).

Table 1. Prevalence rates of pterygium in the study population by age and gender.

Overall Gender
Males Females
N Any pterygium % (CI) Bilateral pterygium % (CI) N Any pterygium % (CI) Bilateral pterygium % (CI) N Any pterygium % (CI) Bilateral pterygium % (CI)
All participants 9735 13.2 (12.5–13.9) 6.7 (6.2–7.2) 4426 13.4 (12.4–14.4) 7.0 (6.2–7.7) 5309 13.1 (12.1–14.0) 6.5 (5.7–7.1)
Age group
40–49 years 3998 11.1 (10.1–12.1) 5.8 (5.0–6.5) 1727 11.3 (9.8–12.8) 6.4 (5.5–7.5) 2271 11 (9.7–12.3) 5.4 (4.4–6.3)
50–59 years 2438 13.7 (12.3–15.1) 6.9 (5.8–7.8) 1138 12.6 (10.6–14.5) 6.2 (4.7–7.5) 1300 14.8 (12.8–16.7) 7.5 (6.0–8.8)
60–69 years 1981 15.8 (14.2–17.4) 7.7 (6.5–8.8) 900 17.1 (14.6–19.6) 8.7 (6.8–10.5) 1081 14.7 (12.6–16.8) 6.9 (5.4–8.4)
70+ years 1318 14.7 (12.8–16.6) 7.7 (6.2–9.1) 661 15.3 (12.5–18.0) 7.9 (5.8–9.9) 657 14.2 (14.5–16.8) 7.5 (5.4–9.4)
p-value <0.001 0.015 <0.001 0.075 0.002 0.044

On univariate analysis, pterygium was associated with older age, tropical and coastal location, lower levels of literacy, history of indoor smoke exposure, higher quintiles of lifetime cumulative effective sun exposure, use of headgear, and BMI <25kg/m2 in the overall population (Table 2).

Table 2. Association of pterygium with sociodemographic and systemic factors.

Overall Delhi NCR Guwahati Prakasam
Variable OR (95%CI) p-value OR (95%CI) p-value OR (95%CI) p-value OR (95%CI) p-value
Age
40–49 years 1 1 1 1
50–59 years 1.27 (1.1–1.48) 0.002 1.28 (0.97–1.69) 0.081 1.25 (0.92–1.69) 0.147 1.2 (0.95–1.51) 0.123
60–69 years 1.49 (1.28–1.74) <0.001 1.55 (1.17–2.04) 0.002 1.34 (0.97–1.86) 0.071 1.42 (1.12–1.8) 0.004
70+ years 1.38 (1.15–1.65) 0.001 1.78 (1.32–2.4) <0.001 1.28 (0.87–1.88) 0.220 1.06 (0.79–1.42) 0.679
Gender, Male vs. Female 0.97 (0.86–1.09) 0.649 0.8 (0.65–0.98) 0.033 0.65 (0.51–0.82) <0.001 1.43 (1.19–1.72) <0.001
Study location
Delhi NCR 1 - - - - - -
Guwahati 0.81 (0.68–9.31) 0.005 - - - - - -
Prakasam 2 (1.75–2.3) <0.001 - - - - - -
Education
Graduation 1 1 1 1
High school (9–12) 1.22 (0.74–2) 0.431 0.87 (0.43–1.75) 0.687 1.47 (0.62–3.49) 0.383 1.89 (0.55–6.54) 0.312
Middle school (6–8) 1.38 (0.82–2.31) 0.220 0.97 (0.47–1.99) 0.938 1.67 (0.67–4.15) 0.272 2.16 (0.61–7.68) 0.234
Primary school (up to 5) 1.76 (1.08–2.87) 0.023 1.33 (0.66–2.68) 0.431 1.42 (0.59–3.36) 0.429 4.18 (1.28–13.65) 0.018
Illiterate 2.56 (1.59–4.10) <0.001 1.3 (0.67–2.53) 0.441 1.79 (0.77–4.18) 0.174 6.58 (2.06–21.07) 0.001
Occupation, Indoor vs. Outdoor 0.92 (0.79–1.07) 0.308 0.75 (0.57–0.97) 0.029 1.98 (0.8–4.9) 0.140 1.73 (1.42–2.12) <0.001
Smoking, No vs. Yes 0.98 (0.87–1.11) 0.787 1.28 (1.04–1.58) 0.023 1.36 (1.04–1.79) 0.025 0.71 (0.57–0.87) 0.001
Indoor smoke exposure, No vs. Yes 0.86 (0.76–0.97) 0.017 0.83 (0.67–1.02) 0.086 0.99 (0.64–1.52) 0.968 1.31 (1.09–1.58) 0.004
Lifetime cumulative effective sun exposure
    1st quintile 1 1 1 1
    2nd quintile 1.65 (1.33–2.04) <0.001 1.31 (0.89–1.91) 0.172 1.38 (0.92–2.06) 0.121 2.19 (1.56–3.1) <0.001
    3rd quintile 1.83 (1.48–2.27) <0.001 1.53 (1.06–2.23) 0.023 1.35 (0.89–2.03) 0.152 2.64 (1.87–3.72) <0.001
    4th quintile 1.99 (1.62–2.46) <0.001 1.78 (1.23–2.54) 0.002 1.49 (0.85–1.94) 0.228 2.97 (2.12–4.17) <0.001
    5th quintile 2.62 (2.14–3.21) <0.001 2.79 (1.98–3.93) <0.001 1.77 (1.19–2.6) 0.004 3.3 (2.36–4.59) <0.001
Head gear*, No vs. Yes 1.74 (1.13–2.68) 0.011 1.16 (0.49–2.71) 0.732 1.18 (0.71–1.96) 0.534 - -
Diabetes, No vs. Yes 1.01 (0.82–1.25) 0.902 0.9 (0.57–1.43) 0.656 1.14 (0.68–1.9) 0.622 0.7 (0.54–0.92) 0.011
Hypertension, No vs. Yes 0.9 (0.79–1.02) 0.103 0.93 (0.75–1.15) 0.501 1.01 (0.78–1.29) 0.955 0.72 (0.59–0.87) 0.001
BMI ≥25kg/m2, No vs. Yes 0.84 (0.73–0.97) 0.017 0.85 (0.67–1.08) 0.180 0.77 (0.53–1.12) 0.167 0.61 (0.5–0.75) <0.001

NCR, National capital region; BMI, Body mass index

*In Prakasam, all the participants with pterygium reported regular use of a headgear

Occurrence of pterygium correlated with presence of hypermetropia, astigmatism, any cataract, especially nuclear cataract (P<0.0001) (Table 3). CUVAF imaging was performed in a subset of population of Delhi NCR (n = 1145) and Guwahati (n = 133) but no association with pterygium was observed (Table 3).

Table 3. Association of pterygium with CUVAF and ophthalmological variables.

Overall Delhi NCR Guwahati Prakasam
Variable OR (95%CI) p-value OR (95%CI) p-value OR (95%CI) p-value OR (95%CI) p-value
Myopia, No vs. Yes 0.54 (0.47–0.61) <0.001 0.92 (0.71–1.21) 0.569 0.74 (0.45–1.21) 0.228 1.12 (0.87–1.45) 0.368
Hypermetropia, No vs. Yes 1.87 (1.65–2.12) <0.001 1.08 (0.84–1.39) 0.546 1.21 (0.79–1.86) 0.374 1.21 (0.79–1.86) 0.374
Astigmatism, No vs. Yes 1.23 (1.05–1.44) 0.010 1.02 (0.8–1.3) 0.880 1.24 (0.86–1.8) 0.242 1.4 (1.07–1.82) 0.014
Dry eye disease, No vs. Yes 0.97 (0.85–1.11) 0.687 0.8 (0.64–0.99) 0.038 1.49 (1.15–1.94) 0.003 2.01 (1.54–2.62) <0.001
Any Cataract, No vs. Yes 1.32 (1.17–1.49) <0.001 1.32 (1.07–1.64) 0.011 1.16 (0.89–1.51) 0.272 1.12 (0.93–1.34) 0.231
Cortical cataract, No vs. Yes 1.10 (0.87–1.39) 0.422 1.42 (1.03–1.96) 0.031 1.22 (0.79–1.86) 0.370 4.71 (1.94–11.42) 0.001
Nuclear cataract, No vs. Yes 1.32 (1.15–1.53) <0.001 1.48 (1.14–1.92) 0.003 1.17 (0.87–1.57) 0.309 1.11 (0.9–1.37) 0.335
PSC, No vs. Yes 0.97 (0.72–1.3) 0.818 1.14 (0.81–1.63) 0.453 1.5 (0.67–3.35) 0.324 0.84 (0.35–2.05) 0.701
ARMD, No vs. Yes 0.89 (0.65–1.23) 0.487 1.23 (0.86–1.77) 0.263 0.81 (0.35–1.89) 0.633 1.3 (0.14–12.55) 0.819
CUVAF *
    1st quintile 1 1 1 -
    2nd quintile 1.1 (0.59–1.9) 0.851 1.11 (0.6–2.06) 0.734 0.51 (0.5–5.18) 0.567 -
    3rd quintile 1.25 (0.71–2.21) 0.447 1.17 (0.63–2.17) 0.622 1.89 (0.42–8.52) 0.412 -
    4th quintile 1.27 (0.72–2.25) 0.406 1.25 (0.67–2.29) 0.483 1.51 (0.31–7.26) 0.610 -

NCR, National capital region; OR, Odds Ratio; CI, Confidence Interval; PSC, Posterior subcapsular cataract; ARMD, Age related macular degeneration; CUVAF, Conjunctival ultraviolet autofluorescence

*CUVAF was not recorded in population of Prakasam

Multi-variable logistic regression analysis using backward stepwise elimination of variables was performed for all the factors showing significant association on univariate analysis in the overall population and at each study location (Table 4). In the overall population, pterygium was associated with study location, literacy levels, lifetime cumulative effective sun exposure and BMI. The study population at Prakasam (south coastal region) had the highest likelihood of pterygium (OR- 2.1; CI 1.8–2.5; p<0.001). Illiterates had about twice the risk (OR-1.7; CI 1–2.7; p = 0.037) of having pterygium than those educated up to and beyond graduation. Increasing lifetime cumulative sun exposure had a positive association with pterygia. In the overall population, the fifth quintile of lifetime cumulative effective sun exposure had about two times higher risk than first quintile (OR-2.3; CI 1.8–2.9; p<0.001). Variable associations were noted at different study locations. BMI ≥25kg/m2 showed a protective effect for pterygium (OR-0.8; CI 0.7–0.9; p = 0.013). Indoor smoke exposure (OR-1.3; CI 1.1–1.7; p = 0.012), astigmatic refractive error (OR-1.4; CI 1.1–1.9; p = 0.017) and cortical cataract (OR-3.7; CI 1.4–9.5; p = 0.017) showed significant positive associations in population of Prakasam. DED was observed as a protective factor in Delhi NCR (OR- 0.7; CI 0.6–0.9; p = 0.006) and a risk factor in Prakasam (OR- 1.6; CI 1.2–2.2; p = 0.002).

Table 4. Significant associations of pterygium on multivariate analysis.

  Overall Delhi NCR Guwahati Prakasam
Variable Adjusted OR (95%CI) p-value Adjusted OR (95%CI) p-value Adjusted OR (95%CI) p-value Adjusted OR (95%CI) p-value
Study location
    Delhi NCR 1 - - - -
    Guwahati 1.01(0.84–1.2) 0.954 - - - - - -
    Prakasam 2.11(1.83–2.45) <0.001 - - - - - -
Education level
    Graduation 1 - - 1
    High School (9–12) 1.18(0.71–1.94) 0.524 - - - - 1.61(0.46–5.66) 0.461
    Middle School (6–8) 1.21(0.72–2.04) 0.474 - - - - 1.65(0.45–6.04) 0.449
    Primary school (up to 5) 1.37(0.84–2.25) 0.212 - - - - 2.92(0.88–9.69) 0.080
    Illiterate 1.67(1.03–2.71) 0.037 - - - - 3.85(1.18–12.6) 0.026
Indoor smoke exposure, No vs. Yes - - - - - 1.33(1.07–1.66) 0.012
Lifetime cumulative effective sun exposure
    1st quintile 1 1 1 1
    2nd quintile 1.45(1.15–1.82) 0.001 0.98(0.61–1.57) 0.931 1.45(1.06–2) 0.421 1.85(1.16–2.96) 0.010
    3rd quintile 1.52(1.22–1.89) <0.001 1.32(0.86–2.03) 0.198 1.23(0.85–1.79) 0.264 2.1(1.44–3.06) <0.001
    4th quintile 1.69(1.36–2.11) <0.001 1.37(0.91–2.06) 0.131 1.77(1.17–2.67) 0.007 2.14(1.48–3.11) <0.001
    5th quintile 2.28(1.82–2.85) <0.001 2.36(1.62–3.45) <0.001 2.15(1.16–4) 0.015 2.4(1.62–3.56) <0.001
BMI
    <25 kg/m2 1 - - 1
    ≥25 kg/m2 0.82(0.71–0.95) 0.009 - - - - 0.8(0.64–1) 0.052
Astigmatism, No vs. Yes - - - - - - 1.41(1.07–1.88) 0.017
Dry eye disease, No vs. Yes - - 0.74(0.59–0.92) 0.006 - - 1.61(1.19–2.19) 0.002
Cortical cataract, No vs. Yes - - - - - - 3.7(1.43–9.54) 0.007

NCR, National capital region; BMI, Body mass index

Discussion

The ICMR EYE SEE study is a multicentric, population-based study from India investigating the prevalence and associated risk factors of pterygium at distinct geographical locations. We found that coastal location, increasing lifetime cumulative effective sun exposure, illiteracy, and low BMI were significant risk factors for pterygium.

In our study, the prevalence of pterygium in any eye in adults aged ≥40 years in a rural population was 13.2%. The prevalence of pterygium was higher at the southern coastal site of Prakasam (20.3%). When compared with other studies from India, our result was higher than that reported by a study in South India (9.5%), Andhra Pradesh Eye Disease Study (APEDS) (11.7%), and a hospital-based series (10.5%) [1719]. One study from central India has reported a pterygium rate of 15% in its rural population [20]. A similar rate of 15.2% was reported from a rural cohort in south India [17]. It is imperative to highlight that climatic conditions in India vary considerably with geographical location, and there are substantial differences in the amount of sunlight received, lifestyle preferences, and primary occupation as one moves from one geographical region to another.

The prevalence of bilateral pterygium in the current study was 6.7%. This was similar to that reported in Andhra Pradesh State, India (6.9%) and higher than that observed in Central India (4%) and Singapore (4.9%) [20, 21]. Literature review suggests considerable variations in pterygium rates across studies from various parts of the world. The prevalence in our study was higher than reported by studies in Greater Beijing, China (2%) [7], Victoria, Australia (2.8%) [5], and Singapore (12.3%) [23] and lower than the pterygium frequency in Indonesia (17%) [22], and rural Dali, China (29%) [8]. Racial and genetic differences along with behavioral and environmental variations between populations studied could explain this discordance [4, 6, 22].

Our study corroborates findings from other studies that show that the prevalence of pterygium increases with increasing age [1721, 23]. The prevalence increased from 11.1% in 40–49 years age group to 15.8% in 60–69 years age group. The APEDS in India reported a similar trend wherein the prevalence was 11.4% in 40–49 years age group and increased to 15.6% in 60–69 years age group [18]. Similarly, Cajucom et al observed that the pterygium rate increased from 7.1% in 4th decade to 19% in 6th decade in Malay population of Singapore [21]. The combined effect of cumulative ocular UV damage and age-related changes in the ocular surface milieu predisposes older individuals to increased risk of pterygium.

In the current study, pterygium rates were similar between males and females (13.4% vs. 13.1%). While most studies report a higher prevalence in males, two studies from south India demonstrated no difference between the two sexes [3, 5, 7, 17, 18, 23]. Zhong et al and Lu et al even documented higher risk in females [8, 24]. Interestingly, in our study, site-specific analyses showed that males had higher pterygium rates at Delhi NCR (12.5% vs. 10.2%) and Guwahati (11.1% vs. 7.5%) but lower at Prakasam (17.2% vs. 22.8%). Men are traditionally more prone to occupational and recreational sun exposure, which can explain their higher risk but the varied results across studies suggest that other factors might be at play.

Exposure to sunlight, particularly UV radiation, is incriminated to be the most important risk factor for pterygium and all other factors are suspected to be proxy measures for it [16]. Despite its significance, there is no objective diagnostic tool for measurement of total amount of sun exposure of an individual. Most studies have used number of hours spent outdoors and outdoor occupation as a surrogate measure of sun exposure [1820, 22, 25]. In the current study, we have used an individualized approach for calculating the approximate cumulative lifetime effective sunlight exposure taking into account the effect of protective headgear and eyewear with the help of Melbourne formula [16]. A stronger positive association was found between the higher cumulative effective sun exposure and pterygium. Our results support other studies in literature [5, 17, 26]. Asokan et al also utilized Melbourne model to calculate lifetime sun exposure but only in a subset of participants [17]. Chun et al used serum 25(OH) D levels as an objective indicator of sun exposure and showed highest association with sun exposure of >5 hours/day [25].

Lower education level reflects lower socioeconomic status and serves as an indirect indicator of UV exposure as individuals with higher education are more likely to be involved in indoor skilled professions. Similar to previous literature, lower literacy levels were associated with pterygium in our study [20, 25]. Higher BMI had a protective effect on pterygium in our study. It could be suggested that people with higher BMI are more likely to be confined indoors with resultant lower sun exposure. Literature provides inconclusive evidence regarding the association between pterygium and BMI [27, 28]. McKnight et al reported that participants with pterygium were less likely to be overweight/obese than those without it, although no association was found between overall BMI and pterygium [27]. On contrary, increased oxidative stress in obese has been implicated in pterygium occurrence in females [28]. The exact relationship between BMI and pterygium cannot be explained with the available evidence and prospective studies are required to establish the causality.

The prevalence of pterygium showed distinct variation in our study with respect to location. Highest prevalence was observed at Prakasam (Southern coast) (20.3%) followed by Delhi NCR (Northern plains) (11.2%) and Guwahati (North-eastern hills) (9.1%). Climatic and environmental factors like sun exposure, air pollution and humidity, and lifestyle and socioeconomic differences may account for the observed difference. Prakasam being a coastal district sees a lot of fishing on the seas leading to higher exposure to UV radiation. It is well known that a negative association exists between latitude and pterygium prevalence [10]. This relationship has been explained partly by the diminishing UV component of solar radiation with increasing latitude [10]. Although Wong et al refuted this theory by demonstrating similar pterygium rates in two populations at notably different latitudes, we found higher prevalence of pterygium at Prakasam, that was located closest to equator (15° N) when compared to Delhi NCR (28.7° N) and Guwahati (26.1° N) [4]. We also noted that even though the median lifetime sun exposure was highest in Delhi NCR, pterygium rate was highest in Prakasam. As per our previously published results, Prakasam was the site with highest mean UVA and UVB exposure, maximum average wind speed, and highest humidity, and lowest air pollution [12, 13] Lee et al found no association between air pollution and pterygium [29]. These observations highlight that a complex interplay among environmental parameters underlies the pathogenesis of pterygium and air quality parameters could play a role, although individualized data will give more valuable insight.

On site-specific analysis, we observed that indoor smoke exposure, astigmatic refractive error, DED and cortical cataract were associated with higher odds of pterygium in population of Prakasam. We have previously reported that cortical cataract is strongly associated with UV exposure [12]. Indoor smoke exposure due to wood and biomass fuel for cooking and heating alters ocular surface health [30]. Its role in causation of DED is well established [13]. DED is an established risk factor for pterygium and unevenness of ocular surface due to pterygium predisposes to DED [23, 29]. Counterintuitive results observed with DED in Delhi NCR only substantiate the theory of interplay of multiple factors that may be responsible for the etiopathogenesis of pterygium and that no definite relationship has yet been established.

CUVAF imaging has recently been developed to serve as an objective biomarker of ocular UV exposure. Studies from Australia have reported increasing CUVAF as an independent risk factor for pterygium [31, 32]. Taking a holistic approach in evaluating risk factors for pterygium, we performed CUVAF imaging in a subset of participants but found no association between the two. We feel that capturing CUVAF images in a large population-based study like the present one is cumbersome and not practically feasible.

The strengths of our study are the large multicentric population-based sample size, high response rate, individualized approach to measure lifetime cumulative sun exposure, and comprehensive assessment of risk factors. Limitations include the inability to determine individualized air quality parameters and the cross-sectional design of the study.

In conclusion, this study reports a high prevalence of pterygium in rural populations of India. Higher prevalence of pterygium was associated with coastal location, increasing lifetime cumulative effective sun exposure, lower literacy levels, and lower BMI in this study. To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest population-based study that highlights ocular morbidity due to pterygium and its associated risk factors at diverse geographical locations. This study provides further evidence and support to the theory that pterygium is a multifactorial ocular disorder caused by complex interactions between multitudes of intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Modifiable risk factors should be targeted to reduce the morbidity associated with this condition so that the high burden, especially in tropical and subtropical regions, may be tackled effectively.

Acknowledgments

Dr. Saurabh Agarwal Jwalaprasad, Dr. Bhagbat Nayak, Dr. Jayanta Thakuria, Dr. Indrani Goswami, Ms. Tanya Patel, Ms. Ankita Mall, Dr. Rupesh M Das are acknowledged for their contribution to data acquisition. Mr. Amit Bhardwaj and Mr. Deepak Kumar are acknowledged for their contribution to data management and analysis. We would like to acknowledge the ICMR Task Force on global climate change and health chaired by Prof. Seyed E. Hasnain, IIT Delhi, for periodic review and technical inputs during the course of the study. All the members of the ICMR Eye Sun Exposure & Environment “EYE SEE” study group are acknowledged for their contributions to the project.

THE ICMR EYE SUN EXPOSURE & ENVIRONMENT “EYE SEE” STUDY GROUP.

Centres Principal investigator Co-investigators Scientist/Research officers
Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, AIIMS, New Delhi (Coordinating Center) Dr. Radhika
Tandon
Dr. Praveen
Vashist
Dr.
Noopur
Gupta
Dr. Vivek
Gupta
Dr. Saumya Yadav Dr.Pranita Sahay
Dr.Rashmi Singh
Dr. Meenakshi
Wadhwani
Dr. Shweta
Dr. Aparna
Gupta
Dr. Saurabh
Agarwal
Jwalaprasad
Dr. Bhagbat
Nayak
Indian Institute of Public Health, Hyderabad Dr. GVS
Murthy
Dr. K.
Vishwanath
Dr. Hemant
Kumar
Dr. Vijay Kiran
Regional Institute of Ophthalmology,
Guwahati
Dr.
C.K.Barua
Dr. Dipali
Deka
Dr.
Jayanta
Thakuria
Dr. Indrani
Goswami
National Physical Laboratory, New
Delhi
Dr.
Sachchidanand
Singh
Ms.
Tanya Patel
Ms. Ankita
Mall
Dr. Rupesh
M Das

Data Availability

All data files are available from the Figshare repository: Tandon, Radhika; Vashist, Praveen; Gupta, Noopur; Gupta, Vivek; Yadav, Saumya; Deka, Dipali; et al. (2022): ICMR_Pterygium_Study_Data.csv. figshare. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.19626003.v1.

Funding Statement

Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), India provided funding for this research project (Grant No 68/4/2009-NCD-1). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Bidyādhar NK. Susruta and his ophthalmic operations. Arch Ophthalmol. 1939;22: 550–574. doi: 10.1001/archopht.1939.00860100034003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Murube J. Pterygium: descriptive nomenclature of the past. Ocul Surf. 2008;6: 104–107. doi: 10.1016/s1542-0124(12)70278-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Panchapakesan J, Hourihan F, Mitchell P. Prevalence of pterygium and pinguecula: the Blue Mountains Eye Study. Aust N Z J Ophthalmol. 1998;26 Suppl 1: S2–5. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-9071.1998.tb01362.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Wong TY, Foster PJ, Johnson GJ, Seah SK, Tan DT. The prevalence and risk factors for pterygium in an adult Chinese population in Singapore: the Tanjong Pagar survey. Am J Ophthalmol. 2001;131: 176–183. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9394(00)00703-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.McCarty CA, Fu CL, Taylor HR. Epidemiology of pterygium in Victoria, Australia. Br J Ophthalmol. 2000;84: 289–292. doi: 10.1136/bjo.84.3.289 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Ang M, Li X, Wong W, Zheng Y, Chua D, Rahman A, et al. Prevalence of and racial differences in pterygium: a multiethnic population study in Asians. Ophthalmology. 2012;119: 1509–1515. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.02.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Ma K, Xu L, Jie Y, Jonas JB. Prevalence of and factors associated with pterygium in adult Chinese: the Beijing Eye Study. Cornea. 2007;26: 1184–1186. doi: 10.1097/ICO.0b013e318151f9c6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Zhong H, Cha X, Wei T, Lin X, Li X, Li J, et al. Prevalence of and risk factors for pterygium in rural adult chinese populations of the Bai nationality in Dali: the Yunnan Minority Eye Study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53: 6617–6621. doi: 10.1167/iovs.11-8947 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Chui J, Coroneo MT, Tat LT, Crouch R, Wakefield D, Di Girolamo N. Ophthalmic Pterygium. Am J Pathol. 2011;178: 817–827. doi: 10.1016/j.ajpath.2010.10.037 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Cameron M. Pterygium throughout the world. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas; 1965. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Liu T, Liu Y, Xie L, He X, Bai J. Progress in the pathogenesis of pterygium. Curr Eye Res. 2013;38: 1191–1197. doi: 10.3109/02713683.2013.823212 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Vashist P, Tandon R, Murthy GVS, Barua CK, Deka D, Singh S, et al. Association of cataract and sun exposure in geographically diverse populations of India: The CASE study. First Report of the ICMR-EYE SEE Study Group. PLoS ONE. 2020;15: e0227868. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227868 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Tandon R, Vashist P, Gupta N, Gupta V, Sahay P, Deka D, et al. Association of dry eye disease and sun exposure in geographically diverse adult (≥40 years) populations of India: The SEED (sun exposure, environment and dry eye disease) study—Second report of the ICMR-EYE SEE study group. Ocul Surf. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jtos.2020.07.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Maheshwari S. Pterygium-induced corneal refractive changes. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2007;55: 383–386. doi: 10.4103/0301-4738.33829 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Yadav S, Gupta N, Singh R, Patil M, Meel R, Vanathi M, et al. Role of Conjunctival Ultraviolet Autofluorescence in Ocular Surface Squamous Neoplasia. Ocul Oncol Pathol. 2020;6: 422–429. doi: 10.1159/000509578 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.McCarty CA, Lee SE, Livingston PM, Bissinella M, Taylor HR. Ocular exposure to UV-B in sunlight: the Melbourne visual impairment project model. Bull World Health Organ. 1996;74: 353–360. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Asokan R, Venkatasubbu RS, Velumuri L, Lingam V, George R. Prevalence and associated factors for pterygium and pinguecula in a South Indian population. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2012;32: 39–44. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-1313.2011.00882.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Marmamula S, Khanna RC, Rao GN. Population-Based Assessment of Prevalence and Risk Factors for Pterygium in the South Indian State of Andhra Pradesh: The Andhra Pradesh Eye Disease Study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54: 5359–5366. doi: 10.1167/iovs.13-12529 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Das AV, Podila S, Prashanthi GS, Basu S. Clinical profile of pterygium in patients seeking eye care in India: electronic medical records-driven big data analytics report III. Int Ophthalmol. 2020;40: 1553–1563. doi: 10.1007/s10792-020-01326-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Nangia V, Jonas JB, Nair D, Saini N, Nangia P, Panda-Jonas S. Prevalence and Associated Factors for Pterygium in Rural Agrarian Central India. The Central India Eye and Medical Study. PLOS ONE. 2013;8: e82439. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0082439 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Cajucom-Uy H, Tong L, Wong TY, Tay WT, Saw SM. The prevalence of and risk factors for pterygium in an urban Malay population: the Singapore Malay Eye Study (SiMES). Br J Ophthalmol. 2010;94: 977–981. doi: 10.1136/bjo.2008.150847 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Tan CSH, Lim TH, Koh WP, Liew GC, Hoh ST, Tan CC, et al. Epidemiology of pterygium on a tropical island in the Riau Archipelago. Eye (Lond). 2006;20: 908–912. doi: 10.1038/sj.eye.6702046 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.West S, Muñoz B. Prevalence of pterygium in Latinos: Proyecto VER. Br J Ophthalmol. 2009;93: 1287–1290. doi: 10.1136/bjo.2008.152694 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Lu P, Chen X, Kang Y, Ke L, Wei X, Zhang W. Pterygium in Tibetans: a population-based study in China. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2007;35: 828–833. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-9071.2007.01630.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Bikbov MM, Zainullin RM, Kazakbaeva GM, Gilmanshin TR, Salavatova VF, Arslangareeva II, et al. Pterygium Prevalence and Its Associations in a Russian Population: The Ural Eye and Medical Study. American Journal of Ophthalmology. 2019;205: 27–34. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2019.02.031 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Chun YH, Paik J-S, Oh JH, Kim H-S, Na K-S. Association between pterygium, sun exposure, and serum 25-hydroxyvitamin in a nationally representative sample of Korean adults. Lipids in Health and Disease. 2018;17: 260. doi: 10.1186/s12944-018-0902-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.McKnight CM, Sherwin JC, Yazar S, Forward H, Tan AX, Hewitt AW, et al. Pterygium and conjunctival ultraviolet autofluorescence in young Australian adults: the Raine study. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2015;43: 300–307. doi: 10.1111/ceo.12455 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Nam GE, Kim S, Paik J-S, Kim H-S, Na K-S. Association between pterygium and obesity status in a South Korean population. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000005664 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Lee KW, Choi YH, Hwang SH, Paik HJ, Kim MK, Wee WR, et al. Outdoor Air Pollution and Pterygium in Korea. J Korean Med Sci. 2017;32: 143–150. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2017.32.1.143 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.West SK, Bates MN, Lee JS, Schaumberg DA, Lee DJ, Adair-Rohani H, et al. Is Household Air Pollution a Risk Factor for Eye Disease? Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2013;10: 5378–5398. doi: 10.3390/ijerph10115378 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Kearney S O ’Donoghue L, Pourshahidi LK, Richardson PM, Saunders KJ. The use of conjunctival ultraviolet autofluorescence (CUVAF) as a biomarker of time spent outdoors. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2016;36: 359–369. doi: 10.1111/opo.12309 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Sherwin JC, Hewitt AW, Kearns LS, Griffiths LR, Mackey DA, Coroneo MT. The association between pterygium and conjunctival ultraviolet autofluorescence: the Norfolk Island Eye Study. Acta Ophthalmol. 2013;91: 363–370. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-3768.2011.02314.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Muralidhar M Kulkarni

15 Mar 2022

PONE-D-21-32060Study of the association of sun exposure, ultraviolet radiation effects and other risk factors for pterygium (The SURE RISK for Pterygium Study) in geographically diverse adult (≥ 40 years) rural populations of India 3rd report of ICMR EYE SEE groupPLOS ONE

Dear Prof. Tandon

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 29 2022 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.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • 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 you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

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,

Muralidhar M. Kulkarni

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

1. 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. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Financial support Section of your manuscript:

“Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), India provided funding for this research project (Grant No 68/4/2009-NCD-1). The funding source had no role in the study design, in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data, writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication.”

We note that you have provided additional information within the Financial support  Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that funding information should not appear in other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“RT (Grant No 68/4/2009-NCD-1) Indian Council of Medical Research”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“RT (Grant No 68/4/2009-NCD-1) Indian Council of Medical Research”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

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.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

I congratulate the authors for this important work. It will add to the existing knowledge and herald further research.

Minor corrections required.

Authors can address the reviewers concerns and consider the following.

The methodology can be condensed by using appropriate references so that it is crisp and less time consuming for readers to go to the crux of the study.

[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?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This study has generated few highlighting information regarding pterygium and its association with several risk factors. It definitely adds more knowledge about the disease. I have few questions to the author.

1) The lifetime cumulative effect of sun exposure was calculated with the help of satellite-based data for environmental UV exposure. How relevant and accurate is the data? Is the data for entire lifetime was calculated based on the current location where the study took place? Also AOD values and meteorological data was used in the study from three mentioned locations. Are those accounted at the time of examination? Or any time period? How the author will justify it based on the participants occupation location? As some might have different work place where they might be exposed more than that particular location where the measurement was done. It will be better if explained elaborately.

2) Is there any association between pterygium and the type of work the participants does?

3) Why indoor smoke exposure was considered? Does it include passive smokers as well?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (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: Yes: Avinash Soundararajan

[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. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Manuscript_PLOS_mk.docx

PLoS One. 2022 Jul 21;17(7):e0270065. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270065.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


26 Apr 2022

Reviewer’s Comments

Q1. The lifetime cumulative effect of sun exposure was calculated with the help of satellite-based data for environmental UV exposure. How relevant and accurate is the data? Is the data for entire lifetime was calculated based on the current location where the study took place? Also AOD values and meteorological data was used in the study from three mentioned locations. Are those accounted at the time of examination? Or any time period? How the author will justify it based on the participants occupation location? As some might have different workplace where they might be exposed more than that particular location where the measurement was done. It will be better if explained elaborately.

A1. We thank the reviewer for bringing up this important point. The estimation of lifetime effective sun exposure was not satellite-based but was calculated for every participant in the study using the following formula, based on the Melbourne visual impairment project model:

Lifetime Effective Sun Exposure = Σ [Daily hours of sun exposure without headgear + (Daily hours of sun exposure using headgear x protection factor)] x 365 x Number of years.

The study location has no role in the determination of lifetime cumulative effective sun exposure. We can assure the reviewer that this data is reliable and the Melbourne model has been successfully used by several studies for calculating lifetime ocular sun exposure.

Satellite-based data for the entire region was used for the measurements of AOD, UVA and UVB flux at the three study locations for the study period i.e. between 2010 and 2016. In addition, meteorological data for humidity, precipitation, temperature, wind speed, and air pollutants were also obtained for the three locations for the study period.

We agree with the reviewer that the topics of lifetime cumulative exposure and climatic parameters need an elaborate explanation. These topics have been discussed in detail in our previous publications (mentioned below). To keep the manuscript concise and easy to read we decided not to discuss it in depth in the current manuscript and have provided appropriate references for the same.

1. Vashist P, Tandon R, Murthy GVS, Barua CK, Deka D, Singh S, Gupta V, Gupta N, Wadhwani M, Singh R, Vishwanath K; ICMR-EYE SEE Study Group. Association of cataract and sun exposure in geographically diverse populations of India: The CASE study. First Report of the ICMR-EYE SEE Study Group. PLoS One. 2020 Jan 23;15(1):e0227868. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227868.

2. Tandon R, Vashist P, Gupta N, Gupta V, Sahay P, Deka D, Singh S, Vishwanath K, Murthy GVS. Association of dry eye disease and sun exposure in geographically diverse adult (≥40 years) populations of India: The SEED (sun exposure, environment and dry eye disease) study - Second report of the ICMR-EYE SEE study group. Ocul Surf. 2020 Oct;18(4):718-730. doi: 10.1016/j.jtos.2020.07.016.

Q2. Is there any association between pterygium and the type of work the participants does?

A2. We thank the reviewer for this comment. In this study, the occupation of the participants was classified primarily as indoors and outdoors. This is pertinent that there might be some variation in the specific job that an individual does but our predominant focus was to gather information on whether the individual had sunlight exposure during his working hours. What mattered was overall time spent outdoors and not only related to occupation. In the overall population, we did not find any association between pterygium and whether the occupation of participants involved indoor or outdoor activity. Page no: 9, Table 2.

Q3. Why indoor smoke exposure was considered? Does it include passive smokers as well?

A3. We thank the reviewer for highlighting this important point. The indoor smoke exposure due to the use of biomass fuel is a major contributor to indoor (household) pollution and is associated with a number of acquired systemic diseases. For this study, indoor smoke exposure was defined as a lifetime history of use of biomass fuels (coal, dung-cakes, wood) in the kitchen. A positive association of indoor smoke exposure with cataract and dry eye disease has been found in our previous analyses. Our aim was to find any such possible association between pterygium and indoor smoke exposure.

In order to account for the similar nature of exposure and mechanism of action on the eyes, passive smokers were included in the group “smokers” along with active smokers and not with the participants exposed to indoor smoke.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Muralidhar M Kulkarni

3 Jun 2022

The association of sun exposure, ultraviolet radiation effects and other risk factors for pterygium (The SURE RISK for Pterygium Study) in geographically diverse adult (≥40 years) rural populations of India -3rd report of the ICMR-EYE SEE study group

PONE-D-21-32060R1

Dear Dr. Tandon, 

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 for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, 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,

Muralidhar M. Kulkarni

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

We are glad to inform you that the manuscript is accepted for publication.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have addressed all my questions with appropriate response. This paper will definitely add up to the existing scientific knowledge.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (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: Yes: Avinash Soundararajan

**********

Acceptance letter

Muralidhar M Kulkarni

12 Jul 2022

PONE-D-21-32060R1

The association of sun exposure, ultraviolet radiation effects and other risk factors for pterygium (The SURE RISK for Pterygium Study) in geographically diverse adult (≥40 years) rural populations of India -3rd report of the ICMR-EYE SEE study group

Dear Dr. Tandon:

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

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 plosone@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. Muralidhar M. Kulkarni

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Manuscript_PLOS_mk.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All data files are available from the Figshare repository: Tandon, Radhika; Vashist, Praveen; Gupta, Noopur; Gupta, Vivek; Yadav, Saumya; Deka, Dipali; et al. (2022): ICMR_Pterygium_Study_Data.csv. figshare. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.19626003.v1.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES