Described.Briefly, every NHANES participant with a minimum of lightperception vision who didn’t have an infection underwent a point suprathreshold screening test using the N pattern on a Matrix FDT (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA, USA).Participants had been essential to successfully and reliably complete two such tests.The NHANES protocol defined a test as unreliable in the event the falsepositive price was higher than , if there were additional than fixation losses by blind spot testing, or in the event the technician administering the test noted an error of some kind.The result for any unique eye was deemed unreliable if either of the two tests was unreliable by these criteria.The NHANES protocol defines visual field loss because the presence of no less than two field areas in the initially test abnormal at the threshold level and at the very least two field locations inside the second test abnormal at the threshold level with at least one particular abnormal field location becoming the same on both tests.An abnormal FDT was defined as any outcome of that test that would have resulted inside the patient’s getting referred on for further evaluation.This integrated the test not getting carried out, aOptic Disc GradingEach NHANES participant had nonmydriatic photographs taken on the macula and optic disc of both eyes (CRNM; Canon USA, Melville, NY, USA).Initial grading with the photographs, including cuptodisc ratio (CDR), was performed at the University of Wisconsin Fundus PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21576311 Photograph Reading Center.The photographs were also evaluated for the presence of macular illness like macular edema, panretinal photocoagulation, focal photocoagulation, artery or vein occlusion, diabetic retinopathy, agerelated macular degeneration, chorioretinal abnormalities, macular hole, and retinal detachment.All images with a CDR .on initial grading ( pictures of eyes from participants) wereGlaucoma Prevalence in the United StatesIOVS j Could j Vol.j No.jTABLE .Traits of Study Participants by Glaucoma Status within the National Overall health and Nutrition Examination Survey Overall, n (CI) Age, mean Female sex Raceethnicity White Black Mexican American Other Poverty PIR Education higher college Lack access Insurance coverage PF-04937319 Epigenetics Private only Private and gov.Government only None Insurance for age Private only Private and gov.Government only None Insurance coverage for age Private only Private and gov.Government only None Abnormal FDT outcomes Glaucoma by selfreport …. …. …. …… …. …. .. . . …. No Glaucoma, n (CI) . . …. Glaucoma, n (CI) . . …. ….P Worth Glaucoma vs.No Glaucoma … . . ….( ( )). . . ….( ( )). . . …. . .. .. . Data are implies (self-assurance intervals) or percentages (self-assurance intervals).optimistic (abnormal) result as defined above, insufficient data (only 1 test of two completed), or an unreliable test.Statistical AnalysisThe reference population utilized in this study was the civilian, noninstitutionalized population years of age and older who resided in the Usa during to .NHANES utilised a complex, stratified multistage probability sampling design and style that requires a weighting scheme to provide unbiased prevalence estimates representative from the US population.As people with ungradable photographs in both eyes have been excluded from optic disc regrading, inverse probability weighting was employed to try to account for this possible source of choice bias.We initial built a selection model for the presence of gradable optic disc photographs depending on age, sex, race, education, and access to.