The impact of diabetes on visual acuity in Ethiopia, 2021.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus is a complex metabolic disorder characterized by hyperglycemia that results from defects in insulin secretion, insulin action, or both. Glaucoma is the ocular complication of diabetic illness. In addition to this, retinopathy, maculopathy, ischemic optic neuropathy, extra-ocular muscle palsy, iridocyclitis, and rubeosis iridis were other complications. This study aims to determine the impact of diabetes on visual impairment and blindness among diabetic patients in Ethiopia.
METHODS: This hospital-based cross-sectional study includes 401 samples of diabetic patients in the University of Gondar Comprehensive Specialized Hospital from January 2017 to January 2019. The multinomial logistic regression model was employed to identify significant differences among the factor variables.
RESULTS: The magnitude of blindness was 32.17%, and the burden of severe visual impairment was 12.46%. Of the total patients, 120(29.9%) were have diabetic retinopathy of whom, 113(94.2%) were blind either in the right, left, or both eyes and 3 (2.5%) had severe visual impairment. One hundred twenty-six (31.42%) patients developed diabetic maculopathy of whom, 117 (92.85%) were blind either in the right or left eye, and one (0.8%) had severe visual impairment. From the whole diabetic patients, the magnitude of glaucoma was 186(46.38%), and from the patients who developed glaucoma was blind visual impairment 127(68.27%) either in the right or left eye. Thirty-eight (20.34%) had severe visual impairment. Glaucoma was significantly associated with severe visual impairment and blindness (p<0.001). Glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy, maculopathy, and type of diabetes are factors for visual impairment.
CONCLUSION: We found that visual impairment in the category of severe and blindness are frequent in Ethiopian diabetic patients. Glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy, maculopathy are the main predictive factors that determine the occurrence of blindness.

Introduction

Visual impairment (VI) refers to a functional limitation of the eye or visual system due to a disorder or disease that results in poor vision in the worst eye. According to World Health Organization (WHO) revised definition, it is defined as presenting distance visual acuity worse than 6/18 in the worst eye [1]. Classification of severity of visual impairment recommended by the Resolution of the International Council of Ophthalmology and WHO Consultation includes Moderate VI, Severe VI, and blindness based on presenting visual acuity worse than 6/18, 6/60, and 3/60 respectively [1, 2]. Among the global population, 216.6 million were moderate or severe visual impairment. The leading causes were uncorrected refractive error (116·3 million), cataract (52·6 million), age-related macular degeneration (8·4 million), glaucoma (4·0 million), and diabetic retinopathy (2·6 million) [3]. Visual impairment remains a public health problem especially in low and middle-income countries, which were estimated to be four times higher than in high-income countries [4].

Diabetes mellitus is a complex metabolic disorder characterized by hyperglycemia that results from defects in insulin secretion, insulin action, or both [5]. In 2017 there were 451 million adult people with DM globally, a prevalence expected to rise dramatically in the coming decades [6]. Diabetes has become epidemic proportions fuelled by aged people as well as the rapid increase of obesity, extending its greatest impact especially in developing countries [7, 8]. According to different pieces of evidence, diabetic retinopathy is one of the common microvascular complications of diabetes and further could be classified, as proliferative and non-proliferative stages [9]. According to Cheung et al. [10], diabetic retinopathy is the leading cause of preventable blindness. Diabetic retinopathy was also ranked as the fifth most common cause of moderate to severe vision impairment from 1990 to 2020 [3]. Different studies identified that retinopathy was 34.6% prevalent in the population with diabetes compared to 8.8% in those without diabetes [11].

Glaucoma also another leading cause of visual impairment and blindness worldwide, and the burden is expected to increase as the year’s increase [12]. Glaucoma is the ocular complication of diabetes besides diabetic retinopathy and maculopathy, and other potentially blinding complications such as ischemic optic neuropathy, extra-ocular muscle palsy, iridocyclitis, and rubeosis iridis [13]. Although vision-related quality of life (VR-QoL) is related to visual field loss [13-16], the impact of visual symptoms on the VR-QoL of glaucoma patients has not been fully elucidated. Sight loss is closely related to old age in the next 20 years, the number of persons aged over 85 years will approximately double, which suggests that also the number of the elderly with visual impairment increase [17].

Currently, there is no baseline data on visual impairment and blindness in diabetic patients in the study setting. So, this study aims to identify the impact of diabetes on visual impairment among Ethiopian diabetic patients.

Materials and methods

Study setting and design

A hospital-based cross-sectional study design was employed from January 2017 to January 2019 in the Department of Opthalmology in the University of Gondar comprehensive specialized hospital.

Source of population

The source population of this study was all diabetic patients referred from the diabetic clinic to the ophthalmology department at the University of Gondar Comprehensive Specialized Hospital.

Study population

The sample population for this study was all diabetic patients referred from the diabetic clinic for ophthalmologic evaluation for the specified period (from January 2017 to January 2019). Patients who were critically ill and consequently unable to give informed consent for Participation and Patients with incomplete data are not including in this study.

Sample size determination

The required sample size was computing using single population proportion formula based on the assumption of 95% confidence interval, 5% margin of error, and 26% proportion (p) of visual impairment [8]. An added 10% estimated nonresponse rate made a final sample size of 485.

Sampling procedure

The sample selecting mechanism for this study was a simple random sampling method in which each of the participants had an equal chance of selection to be part of the study.

Operational definition

According to WHO classification, patients were categorized based on the vision of a better-seeing eye [7].

✓ Mild visual impairment (near to normal): Presenting distance visual acuity equal to or better than 6/18

✓ Moderate visual impairment: Presenting distance visual acuity worse than 6/18 but equal to or better than 6/60

✓ Severe visual impairment: Presenting distance visual acuity worse than 6/60 but equal to or better than 3/60

✓ Blindness: Presenting distance visual acuity worse than 3/60

✓ Visual impairment: Any person who has poor vision or blindness.

✓ Diabetic retinopathy: Could be categorizing as proliferative or non-proliferative.

✓ Diabetic maculopathy: When the macula sustains some form of damage.

Data collection and quality control procedure

The structured questionnaire was developing after reviewing relevant works of literature to include all the possible variables that address the objective of this study [8, 18–20]. The data collectors (two data collectors and one supervisor) were recruited from the ophthalmology department to collect the data. A one-day training was given to data collectors on the overall data collection procedure by the principal investigators to ensure data quality. The collected data were reviewed and checked for completeness before data entry could perform. Since this study is prospective, the data collectors explained the purpose of the study to the patients, and the patients participated voluntarily without any additional compensation. At this study period, 401 patients met the inclusion criteria, and they agreed to participate in the study. The remaining 84 patients were excluded from the study because of missing the outcome measure. After collecting socio-demographic data, other clinical data were obtained during ophthalmologic evaluation. The examination was done by an ophthalmologist specializing in glaucoma. The anterior segment was assessed using a slit-lamp biomicroscope. Also, intraocular pressure (IOP) was measured by Goldman tonometry. Presenting the visual acuity was measured using projection charts placed at a distance of 6 m from the patient. Patients who could only count their fingers at 3 m and 1 m attributed a visual acuity of 6/18 and 3/60 correspondingly. The patient is on long-term anti-glaucomatous medication with or without glaucomatous disc changes. Most of the time, patients with visual impairment are not coming for treatment in the early stages of the disease. Due to this reason, when patients come to health care, the problem may reach an advanced stage, and it may be difficult to cure that disease.

Statistical analysis

Data were analyzed using STATA version 16 software. We described continuous variables using mean and standard deviation (SD) or median, and all categorical variables stated in terms of frequency and percentages. The association between categorical variables was computed using the Chi-Square test. Factors associated with visual impairment in the study population assessed using multinomial logistic regression. We computed univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis while adjusting for confounders to seek factors influencing the development of different causes of visual impairment.

Ethical consideration

This study was approved by the University of Gondar Ethical Review committee of the Institutional Review Board. We obtained verbal informed consent from all the participants.

Results

On the whole, 401 diabetic patients participated. Of these, 154 (38.4%) were women, and 247(61.6%) were men. Of the total, 225(56.11%) come from a rural area, and 176(43.89%) patients come from an urban area (Table 1). Of the total patients, 293(73.07%) type 2 diabetes, and the patient’s year range was 17 to 90 years with a median of 60 years and their mean of 58.9 years (SD = 14.6). The median duration of diabetes was six years (.

Table 1

Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of study participants.

Variables	Category	Frequency (%)/mean(SD)	Percent
Age (years)	Overall	58.9(14.6)
	Female	56.7(12.9)
	Male	60.2(15.4)
Sex	Male	247	61.6
	Female	154	38.4
Place of residence	Urban	176	56.11
	Rural	225	43.89
Type of diabetes	Type 1	108	26.93
	Type 2	293	73.07
Hypertension	No	343	85.54
	Yes	58	14.46
Duration of diabetes(years)	Overall	7.9(5.1)
	Type 1	6.3(4.2)
	Type 2	8.5(5.2)
Family history	No	375	93.5
	Yes	26	6.48

As we have seen from Table 2 below, the magnitude of blindness was 32.17% in either right, left, or both eyes, and the burden of severe visual impairment was 12.47%. Similarly, the visual impairment belongs to moderate accounts for 33.42% of the total patients (.

Table 2

Frequency distribution of visual acuity.

Category of visual acuity	Frequency	Percent
Normal	88	21.95
Moderate	134	33.42
Sever	50	12.47
Blind	129	32.17

Among 225 rural diabetic patients, 71(31.5%) were blind, and 28 (12.4%) were severely visual impaired. Similarly, from 176 urban patients, 58(32.9%) were blind, and 22 (12.5%) had severe visual acuity problems ().

Table 4 below indicates that the relationship between visual acuity concerning retinopathy and maculopathy. One hundred twenty (29.9%) participants present with proliferative retinopathy. From these, 113(94.2%) were blind either in the right, left, or both eyes. Only 3 (2.5%) had severe visual impairment. One hundred twenty-six (31.42%) patients developed diabetic maculopathy of whom, 117 (92.85%) were blind either in the right, left, or both eyes. As we compare, both diabetic types almost have equal contributions for visual impairment (p<0.000) (.

Table 4

Retinopathy and maculopathy concerning visual acuity.

Category Visual acuity	Retinopathy		Maculopathy
	Proliferative (120)	Non-proliferative (281)	Yes(126)	No (275)
Normal	3 (2.5)	85 (30.3)	4(3.17)	84(30.55)
Moderate	1 (0.83)	133 (47.3)	4(3.17)	130(47.27)
Severe	3 (2.5)	47 (16.7)	1(0.8)	49(17.82)
Blind	113 (93.38)	16 (5.7)	117(92.85)	12(4.36)
	Chi-square = 302.1648, p-value <0.000		Chi-square = 310.2159, p-value <0.000

From the whole diabetic patients, the magnitude of glaucoma was 186 (46.38%). Of the patients who developed glaucoma, 127(68.27%) were blind visual impairment either in the right, left, or both eyes and 38(20.34%) had severe visual impairment. Glaucoma was significantly associated with severe visual impairment and blindness (p <0.000). The difficulties of visual impairment increase with the severity of glaucoma (.

We computed multivariable logistic regression analysis while adjusting for confounders by running univariate analysis to seek factors influencing the development of the different causes of visual impairment (S1 Table). Maculopathy, retinopathy, type of diabetes, and the presence of glaucoma were associated factors for visual impairment in the multivariate logistic regression model. (.

The multinomial logit estimate comparing type 2 to type 1 diabetes for blind relative to moderate, given the other variables in the model are held constant. The multinomial logit for type 2 diabetes relative to type 1 diabetes is 3.29 units higher for preferring blind to moderate, given all other predictor variables in the model are held constant. In other words, type 2 diabetes is more likely than type 1 to prefer blind to moderate (β = 3.29, CI = 0.33, 6.25, p<0.03). If a person were to increase his diabetic maculopathy, by one unit in the multinomial log-odds for preferring blindness to moderate visual impairment would be expected to increase by 3.24 amount while holding all other variables in the model constant (β = 3.24, CI = 0.66–5.82, p<0.014). For each one-unit increase on this variable, the log-odds of the case falling into the blind visual impairment group (relative to moderate visual impairment group) is increased by 3.77 units. In other words, proliferative retinopathy is more likely than non-proliferative retinopathy to prefer blindness when we compare with those moderate visual impairment(β = 3.77, CI = 0.73–6.82, p<0.015). The presence of glaucoma has a greater risk of falling into blindness, and at the lower risk of coming into moderate visual impairment when compared to a person who has no glaucoma (β = 4.91, CI = 2.86, 6.96, p<0.0001).

For each one-unit increase on this variable, the log-odds of the case falling into the normal visual impairment group (relative to moderate visual impairment group) is decreased by 2.5 units. It suggests that a person has type 2 diabetes is at lower risk in the normal visual impairment and greater risk of moderate visual impairment when compared with the patient who has type 1 diabetes (β = -2.5, CI = -3.18, -1.83, p<0.0001).

Similarly, a person who has proliferative diabetic retinopathy is at greater risk of falling into severe visual impairment groups and at lower risk of coming into the moderate visual impairment group as compared to patients who have non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy (β = 3.55, CI = 0.25, 6.84, p<0.035). The log-odds of the case falling into the severe visual impairment group (relative to moderate visual impairment group) are increased by 3.07 units. It indicates that a patient with a glaucoma case is at high risk of severe visual impairment and less risk of moderate visual impairment as compared with a patient who has no glaucoma case(β = 3.07, CI = 2.19, 3.95, p<0.0001) (

Discussion

In this study, we obtained that magnitude of visual impairment as blind either in the right, left, or both eyes were 32.17%. The burden of severe visual impairment was 12.47% in either left or right eye. The burden of visual impairment in this study was much higher than Ahmadou et al. [8], Xinzhi et al. [21], and lower than in the study by Somdutt et al. [19]. The difference between this finding and other studies may be due to the age group of the subject or the sample selection, skill of the examiner, method of examination, and the study setting. In our findings, we obtained that diabetic retinopathy, diabetic maculopathy, and glaucoma were statistically significant factors for visual impairment as blind. The magnitude of diabetic retinopathy for this study was (29.9%) which lower than the previous study by Funatsu et al. [22] (37%) and Shibru et al. [20] (51.3%). It is higher than studies conducted in Debre Markos (18.9%) by Melkamu Tilahun et al. [18]. However, it is approximately consistent with Roaeid et al. [23] (30.6%). In our study, the magnitude of glaucoma was (46.38%) which much higher than those studied by Ahmadou et al. [8] (15%). This difference may be due to the study population’s varies, and as a result, the mean age of the current study is an increase from the previous study. Even if this magnitude seemed higher, it has great importance that an early systematic screening of glaucoma among diabetic patients. The burden of maculopathy was more than two times compared to that studied by Ahmadou et al. [8]. The difference may be due to the duration of diabetes that the average years for this study are 7.9, and 5 years for the previous study. The other reason may be, the presence of hypertension, systolic blood pressure, and diastolic blood pressure were associated with diabetic maculopathy. When we computed a measure of association between visual impairment with retinopathy, diabetic maculopathy, and glaucoma, they have a strong association independently. This result is confirmed by Ahmadou et al. [8] and Somdutt et al. [19]. In this study, gender was not statistically significant for visual impairment. This result is in line with the previous study [8] and [18]. For the current study, type 2 diabetes was a statistically significant factor for visual impairment as blind. The present study shows similar findings with Somdutt et al. [19] and Shibru et al. [20].

Similarly, our study identified that diabetic retinopathy and glaucoma were also associated with severe visual impairment. This result confirms that the difficulties of visual impairment increase with the severity of glaucoma. This finding is in line with the study done in Ethiopia [24]. This may be due to the study population with relatively similar age ranges (≥ 17 years) and the use of a similar cut-off point for defining visual impairment.

Conclusion

We found that visual impairment in the category of severe and blindness are frequent in Ethiopian diabetic patients. Glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy, maculopathy are the main predictive factors that determine the occurrence of blindness. Glaucoma and diabetic retinopathy are factors that determine severe visual impairment. In addition to this, type of diabetes was the factor of visual impairment.

The univariate analysis of visual impairment of diabetic patients.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Questionnaire.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

22 Apr 2021

PONE-D-21-05208

The impact of diabetes on visual acuity in Ethiopia, 2021

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Asemu,

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 all the points raised by the two experts during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 7/21/2021. 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: http://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,

Deepak Shukla

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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. Please note that PLOS ONE does not copy edit accepted manuscripts (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/criteria-for-publication#loc-5). To that effect, please ensure that your submission is free of typos and grammatical errors.

*Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information.

3. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[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

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: 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

Reviewer #2: 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: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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 is an interesting article providing insights regarding the status of diabetes induced visual impairment in an Ethiopian county. The authors have collected their data from patients referred to them by the Diabetes clinic and have provided us with detailed explanation about how consent was taken from them regarding data sharing. The article has some interesting findings, such as their patient population had a majority with Glaucoma and related ocular pathologies. They also found that many of their patients fall into the Severe and Blind category.

The results are striking and provides an insight with respect to how a single eye or both eyes were affected due to diabetes or other underlying conditions. The article has good results and the authors have strived hard to put forth their discussions in a large section. However the article mainly suffers from usage of English. I highly recommend that this manuscript be referred to a native English speaker to make appropriate changes such that the article is presented in a more readable manner to the international community. Some further suggestions are made below which might help the authors put forth a stronger case in their article.

A comparison between urban and rural populations need to be shown. How many urban/rural people belong to normal or severe category. Are urban people more or less susceptible to blindness? A good amount discussion is warranted and data needs to be put forward.

The authors do not discuss the medications that the patients currently are on. Are they on any medications? If so why is the visual impairment so bad? Discussion needs to be put forward.

The authors have combined data sets of all age groups 17y to 90y. I would recommend splitting this up into different age groups and performing the same analysis as they performed. In the discussions they do mention that their data is a little different from older publications and that it is because they combined all age groups. I think, the current data set should be subdivided and presented according to age groups. This might be high significance.

Reviewer #2: In the manuscript titled “The impact of diabetes on visual acuity in Ethiopia, 2021” the authors have determined the impact of diabetes on visual impairment and blindness among diabetic patients in Ethiopia and have found that glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy, maculopathy are the main predictive factors that determine the occurrence of poor vision and blindness.

After reviewing the manuscript here are my major concerns:

1. There are extensive grammar and spelling mistakes throughout the manuscript. I strongly recommend the English be corrected professionally so that it is easier to comprehend what the authors are attempting to convey to the reader

2. The authors have distinguished between “blind” and “severe vision” Did they mean “severe vision loss or severe vision impairment”? Authors should add either “loss” or “impairment”

3. The questionnaire was based on “relevant works of literature” but no references were cited

4. The authors have not cited a very similar study in Ethiopia from 2019 - Prevalence of Diabetic Retinopathy and Its Associated Factors among Diabetic Patients at Debre Markos Referral Hospital, Northwest Ethiopia, 2019: Hospital-Based Cross-Sectional Study - Melkamu Tilahun et al 2019.

5. The authors need to be more convincing in explaining the novelty of this study in relation to previously published literature.

**********

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: Tejabhiram Yadavalli

Reviewer #2: No

[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.

21 May 2021

Response to editors

1. We prepared the manuscript based on PLOS ONE style templates.

2. We tried to correct the grammar and spelling mistakes.

3. The ethics statement appears in the methods section of our manuscript. We included the questionnaire in the original language and English, as supporting information.

4. We included captions for the supporting information files at the end of the manuscript.

Response to Reviewer 1

1. We have done a comparison between urban and rural in the manuscript.

2. We were discussing the medications that the patient's current status in the manuscript.

3. Based on the reviewer's comment we were splitting up into different age groups and performing the same analysis.

4. Based on the reviewer’s comment we tried to correct the grammar, spelling, and punctuation mistakes throughout the manuscripts.

Response to reviewer 2

1. We were trying to correct grammar and spelling mistakes throughout the manuscript.

2. We mean that severe visual impairment, and the manuscript corrected by severe visual impairment.

3. Based on the reviewer’s comment we have cited the reference on the manuscript.

4. Based on the comment we have cited the mentioned paper.

5. We have mentioned the purpose of this study in the manuscript.

7 Jul 2021

PONE-D-21-05208R1

The impact of diabetes on visual acuity in Ethiopia, 2021

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Asemu,

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 by the reviewer #2 during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 8/7/2021. 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: http://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,

Deepak Shukla

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

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

Reviewer #2: 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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: 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

Reviewer #2: 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

Reviewer #2: 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 the concerns raised by the reviewer. The Language in the newly added sections seems acceptable but not perfect. If this can be modified before the final publication, that would be great. All the new sentences and paragraph are intelligible and do not stop the reader from understanding the statements.

Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed all the comments and recommendations by the reviewers. However there are still a few minor grammatical and sentence construction issues that could be addressed by a native English speaker.

**********

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: Tejabhiram Yadavalli

Reviewer #2: No

[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.

12 Jul 2021

Response to Editors

1. We had reviewed our list of reference, and we tried to correct based on the comments. We did not change the reference lists but, we made complete and corrected the author's name’s

For reference # 1. We add vol.8

For reference # 2. We add the author's name Dandona R

For reference # 3. We add the author's name Bourne R

For reference #t 4. We add the author's name Flaxman SR

For reference # 6. We add the author's name Shaw JE

For reference # 8. We add the author's name Jobert Richie N Nansseu

For reference # 9. We add the author's name Duran S

For reference # 10. We add the author's name Mitchell P

For reference # 11. We add the author's name Andersson D

For reference # 12. We add the author's name Broman A.T

For reference # 13. We add the author's name Gedde SJ

For reference # 14. We add the author's name Willson MR

For reference # 15. We add the author's name Wang Y

For reference # 16. We add the author's name Ferarro J

For reference # 18. We add the author's name Teshome Gobena

For reference # 19. We add the author's name Girsh G. Kamath

For reference # 20. We add the author's name’s, Fekadu Aga and Abdisa Boka

For reference # 21. We add the author's name title MD

For reference # 22. We add the author's name Suto C

For reference # 23. We add the author's name Kadiki OA

For reference # 24. We add the author's name Addisu Wondifraw

2. We had not cited papers that have been retracted. We already used the published articles for our reference lists.

Response to Reviewer 1

Based on the reviewer’s comment we have been addressed all comments previously, and they were ensured that all comments had addressed.

Response to Reviewer 2

Based on the reviewer’s comment we have been addressed all comments previously, and they were ensured that all comments had addressed.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

2 Aug 2021

The impact of diabetes on visual acuity in Ethiopia, 2021

PONE-D-21-05208R2

Dear Dr. Mulu Tiruneh Asemu,

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,

Deepak Shukla

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

5 Aug 2021

PONE-D-21-05208R2

The impact of diabetes on visual acuity in Ethiopia, 2021

Dear Dr. Asemu:

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

Prof. Deepak Shukla

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Table 3

Comparison between the place of residence against visual impairment.

Category of visual acuity	Rural	Urban
Normal	50	38
Moderate	76	58
Severe	28	22
Blind	71	58
Total	225	176

Table 5

Glaucoma and visual impairment.

Category of Visual impairment	Presence of glaucoma
	Yes (186)	No (215)
Normal	4(2.15)	84(39.07)
Moderate	17(9.14)	117(54.42)
Severe	38(20.43)	12(5.58)
Blind	127(68.27)	2(0.93)
	Chi-square = 281.3725, p <0.000

Table 6

Factors associated with visual impairment in the multivariable analysis of diabetic patients.

Outcome	Variables	Category	Coef. (β)	p-value	95% CI
Blind	Sex	Female (R)
		Male	-0.13	0.84	-1.42, 1.15
	Age_cat	17–39 (R)
		40–64	0.44	0.802	-3.03, 3.92
		> 64	-0.64	0.722	-4.17, 2.89
	Type of diabetes	Type 1 (R)
		Type 2	3.29	0.03	0.33, 6.25
	Hypertension	No (R)
		Yes	0.13	0.896	-1.85, 2.12
	Duration of diabetes	10 years and above (R)
		Less than 10 years	-0.970	0.201	-2.45, 0.51
	Retinopathy	Non-proliferative (R)
		Proliferative	3.77	0.015	0.73, 6.82
	Maculopathy	No (R)
		Yes	3.24	0.014	0.66, 5.82
	Presence of glaucoma	No (R)
		Yes	4.91	0.000	2.86, 6.96
Normal	Sex	Female (R)
		Male	0.52	0.137	-0.16, 1.20
	Age_cat	17–39 (R)
		40–64	-0.44	0.369	-1.4, 0.52
		> 64	-0.72	0.198	-1.81,-0.37
	Type of diabetes	Type 1 (R)
		Type 2	-2.5	0.000	-3.18, -1.83
	Hypertension	No (R)
		Yes	0.01	0.99	-1, 1
	Duration of diabetes	10 years and above (R)
		Less than 10 years	0.4	0.449	-0.63, 1.43
	Retinopathy	Non-proliferative (R)
		Proliferative	1.52	0.339	-1.6, 4.64
	Maculopathy	No (R)
		Yes	0.31	0.779	-1.83, 2.44
	Presence of glaucoma	No
		Yes	-0.94	0.165	-2.26, 0.38
Moderate	Base outcome
Severe	Sex	Female (R)
		Male	0.04	0.923	-0.85, 0.94
	Age_cat	17–39 (R)
		40–64	-0.14	0.879	-1.9, 1.63
		> 64	0.03	0.972	-1.83, 1.9
	Type of diabetes	Type 1 (R)
		Type 2	0.7	0.284	-0.58, 1.97
	Hypertension	No (R)
		Yes	0.005	0.99	-1.33, 1.34
	Duration of diabetes	10 years and above (R)
		Less than 10 years	-0.77	0.132	-1.77, 0.23
	Retinopathy	Non-proliferative (R)
		Proliferative	3.55	0.035	0.25, 6.84
	Maculopathy	No (R)
		Yes	-3.15	0.075	-6.63, 0.32
	Presence of glaucoma	No
		Yes	3.07	0.000	2.19, 3.95

R: reference group, (visual impairments = moderate is the base outcome).