Institution
L V Prasad Eye Institute
Nonprofit•Hyderabad, India•
About: L V Prasad Eye Institute is a nonprofit organization based out in Hyderabad, India. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Medicine & Visual acuity. The organization has 1489 authors who have published 3229 publications receiving 60676 citations.
Topics: Medicine, Visual acuity, Glaucoma, Population, Endophthalmitis
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
University of Melbourne1, Singapore National Eye Center2, Allergan3, Aarhus University4, National Yang-Ming University5, University of London6, University of Southern Denmark7, Colorado School of Public Health8, Erasmus University Rotterdam9, Yamagata University10, University of Wisconsin-Madison11, L V Prasad Eye Institute12, University of Warwick13, University of Pittsburgh14, University of Turin15, Madras Medical College16, Rutgers University17, The Heart Research Institute18, Johns Hopkins University19, University of Southern California20, University of Sydney21, Capital Medical University22, Kyushu University23, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention24, National University of Singapore25
TL;DR: Longer diabetes duration and poorer glycemic and blood pressure control are strongly associated with DR, and these data highlight the substantial worldwide public health burden of DR and the importance of modifiable risk factors in its occurrence.
Abstract: OBJECTIVE To examine the global prevalence and major risk factors for diabetic retinopathy (DR) and vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy (VTDR) among people with diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS A pooled analysis using individual participant data from population-based studies around the world was performed. A systematic literature review was conducted to identify all population-based studies in general populations or individuals with diabetes who had ascertained DR from retinal photographs. Studies provided data for DR end points, including any DR, proliferative DR, diabetic macular edema, and VTDR, and also major systemic risk factors. Pooled prevalence estimates were directly age-standardized to the 2010 World Diabetes Population aged 20–79 years. RESULTS A total of 35 studies (1980–2008) provided data from 22,896 individuals with diabetes. The overall prevalence was 34.6% (95% CI 34.5–34.8) for any DR, 6.96% (6.87–7.04) for proliferative DR, 6.81% (6.74–6.89) for diabetic macular edema, and 10.2% (10.1–10.3) for VTDR. All DR prevalence end points increased with diabetes duration, hemoglobin A 1c , and blood pressure levels and were higher in people with type 1 compared with type 2 diabetes. CONCLUSIONS There are approximately 93 million people with DR, 17 million with proliferative DR, 21 million with diabetic macular edema, and 28 million with VTDR worldwide. Longer diabetes duration and poorer glycemic and blood pressure control are strongly associated with DR. These data highlight the substantial worldwide public health burden of DR and the importance of modifiable risk factors in its occurrence. This study is limited by data pooled from studies at different time points, with different methodologies and population characteristics.
3,282 citations
Imperial College London1, Anglia Ruskin University2, University of New South Wales3, Brien Holden Vision Institute4, International Agency for the Prevention of Blindness5, Moorfields Eye Hospital6, York Hospital7, Heidelberg University8, L V Prasad Eye Institute9, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary10, Nova Southeastern University11, University of KwaZulu-Natal12, National Health and Medical Research Council13, World Health Organization14, National University of Singapore15, University of Melbourne16, Selçuk University17, University of Miami18, University of Adelaide19, Queen's University Belfast20, Harvard University21, The George Institute for Global Health22, University of Washington23, University of Michigan24, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman25, University of Alabama at Birmingham26, National Institutes of Health27, Johns Hopkins University28, University of São Paulo29, Henry Ford Health System30, University College London31, Sankara Nethralaya32, University of Nairobi33, University of Georgia34, University of Utah35, Federal University of São Paulo36, Yale University37, Alberta Children's Hospital38, University of Illinois at Chicago39, Medical College of Wisconsin40, Novartis41, University of Udine42, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign43, Royal Children's Hospital44, University of Missouri45, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention46, University of Milan47, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai48, Mayo Clinic49, Pan American Health Organization50, University of Indonesia51, University of Pennsylvania52, University of Crete53, University of Southern California54, University of Florence55, Capital Medical University56, Leipzig University57
TL;DR: A series of regression models were fitted to estimate the proportion of moderate or severe vision impairment and blindness by cause, age, region, and year, and found that world regions varied markedly in the causes of blindness and vision impairment in this age group.
1,909 citations
Anglia Ruskin University1, University of Oxford2, Heidelberg University3, L V Prasad Eye Institute4, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary5, Nova Southeastern University6, University of KwaZulu-Natal7, Brien Holden Vision Institute8, Flinders University9, University of New South Wales10, Royal Liverpool University Hospital11, World Health Organization12, National University of Singapore13, University of Melbourne14, Selçuk University15, University of Burgundy16, University of Miami17, University of Adelaide18, Queen's University Belfast19, Harvard University20, The George Institute for Global Health21, University of Washington22, University of Michigan23, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman24, University of Alabama25, National Institutes of Health26, Johns Hopkins University27, University of São Paulo28, Henry Ford Health System29, University College London30, University of Nairobi31, University of Georgia32, University of Utah33, Federal University of São Paulo34, Yale University35, Alberta Children's Hospital36, University of Pennsylvania37, Medical College of Wisconsin38, Novartis39, University of Udine40, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign41, Royal Children's Hospital42, University of Missouri43, University of Milan44, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention45, Singapore National Eye Center46, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai47, Mayo Clinic48, Pan American Health Organization49, University of Indonesia50, University of Crete51, Erasmus University Rotterdam52, University of Southern California53, University of Florence54, Stellenbosch University55, Capital Medical University56, Leipzig University57, Moorfields Eye Hospital58
TL;DR: There is an ongoing reduction in the age-standardised prevalence of blindness and visual impairment, yet the growth and ageing of the world's population is causing a substantial increase in number of people affected, highlighting the need to scale up vision impairment alleviation efforts at all levels.
1,473 citations
Anglia Ruskin University1, Norwegian Institute of Public Health2, University of London3, Carnegie Mellon University4, Heidelberg University5, L V Prasad Eye Institute6, Nova Southeastern University7, University of KwaZulu-Natal8, Brien Holden Vision Institute9, Flinders University10, University of Melbourne11
TL;DR: The differences and temporal changes found in causes of blindness and MSVI have implications for planning and resource allocation in eye care.
1,388 citations
TL;DR: The basic knowledge to calculate sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value is discussed and how to use these measures in day-to-day clinical practice is provided.
Abstract: In this article, we have discussed the basic knowledge to calculate sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value. We have discussed the advantage and limitations of these measures and have provided how we should use these measures in our day-to-day clinical practice. We also have illustrated how to calculate sensitivity and specificity while combining two tests and how to use these results for our patients in day-to-day practice.
899 citations
Authors
Showing all 1621 results
| Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Carol L. Shields | 102 | 1424 | 46800 |
| Catherine A. McCarty | 88 | 408 | 31056 |
| Lalit Dandona | 82 | 156 | 88047 |
| Ashish Sharma | 75 | 909 | 20460 |
| Mark D. P. Willcox | 72 | 562 | 18445 |
| Harminder S Dua | 66 | 420 | 17371 |
| Gullapalli N Rao | 63 | 269 | 12060 |
| Clare Gilbert | 63 | 400 | 14558 |
| Jill E Keeffe | 51 | 274 | 12695 |
| Thomas Naduvilath | 50 | 167 | 9270 |
| May Griffith | 49 | 195 | 8263 |
| Virender S Sangwan | 49 | 289 | 7816 |
| Vishal Gupta | 47 | 387 | 9974 |
| Savitri Sharma | 46 | 335 | 7969 |
| Deborah F. Sweeney | 44 | 142 | 7054 |