Table 1

Reported incidence of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) (per 100000 of population), clinical characteristics and inclusion criteria as reported in previous population-based epidemiology studies ordered by sample size

Study population and publication yearRegion and study designStudy type (methodology score)Study duration (years)Total study populationNo of RRD casesTotal incidence per 100000 of population (95% CI)Incidence per 100000 of phakic non-traumatic RRD (95% CI)Incidence per 100000 of pseudophakic RRD (95% CI)*Incidence per 100000 of traumatic RRD (95% CI)Macula detached at presentation (%)Myopic RRD cases (%)Bilateral (%)Trauma includedRe-operations included
Singapore9 (1999)SingaporeICD-9 (15)42705115112610.5 (10.2 to 10.9)N/SN/SN/SN/SN/SN/SN/SNo
Stockholm and surrounding counties8 (1999)SwedenProspective; diagnosis by clinician (12)11744330111614N/SN/SN/S52.3%−4.16 (−5 to −3.3 D)N/SN/SNo
Orebro and Varmland6 (1987)SwedenProspective; diagnosis by clinician (16)10N/S59010.6 (9.8 to 11.4)7.971.97*0.66N/S25 (>–2 D)11.2YesYes
Beijing10 (2003)ChinaProspective; diagnosis by clinician (20)165890005267.98 (7.3 to 8.67)6.25 (5.65 to 6.86)0.8* (0.59 to 1.02)0.93 (0.69 to 1.16)N/S66.5 (>–1 D)5.8%YesNo
Iowa County4 (1982)USAQuestionnaire survey (13)1282450036112.4 (11.5 to 14.2)6.1 (5.4 to 7.3)N/S1.4 (1 to 2)N/SN/S3.4YesN/S
Sao Paolo13 (2007)BrazilICD-10 (16)133892943139.2 (8.2 to 10.3)7.1 (6.3 to 8.1)1 (0.7 to 1.4)0.9 (0.6 to 1.3)N/SN/SN/SYesNo
Olmstead County, Minnesota7 (1999)U.S.AICD-9 (15)2010647031117.9 (15.9 to 19.9)12.6 (10.9 to 14.3)3.4 (2.46 to 4.16)*1.3 (0.8 to 1.7)41N/S6YesN/S
Helsinki5 (1985)FinlandRetrospective assessment (16)411219553106.9 (5.5 to 8.7)5.4 (4.3 to 7)N/S0.8 (0.4 to 1.6)56.540 (>–1 D)9.9YesN/S
Split-Dalmatia County14 (1999)CroatiaRetrospective assessment (7)11465947272N/S5.3 (4.1 to 6.2)N/SN/SN/S46.9 (>–0.75 D)2.2NoN/S
Kumamoto15 (1995)JapanRetrospective assessment (17)1184030019210.4 (9 to 12)9.8 (8.5 to 11.4)N/S0.2 (0 to 0.5)N/S–3.7±5 D4.2YesN/S
Auckland16 (2004)New ZealandProspective; diagnosis by clinician (20)1120569414611.8 (9.8 to 13.7)6.1 (4.7 to 7.6)4.1 (3 to 5.4)2 (1.3 to 3)N/S23 (>–6 D)3.5YesNo
Wolverhampton12 (2003)UKRetrospective assessment (15)524860014011.3 (9.48 to 13.3)9.7 (8 to 11.4)1.2 (0.68 to 2)0.7 (0.34 to 1.38)N/SN/SN/SYesN/S
Walsall12 (2003)UKRetrospective assessment (15)5259517836.3 (5.1 to 7.92)5.4 (4.28 to 6.9)0.9 (0.48 to 1.62)0.5 (0.22 to 1.12)N/SN/SN/SYesN/S
Shanghai11 (2002)ChinaProspective; population survey (13)41081326114.4 (10 to 18.6)N/SN/S6.5 (2.6 to 13.3)N/S68.8 (>–3 D)9.8YesNo
Rochester, Minnesota2 (1982)USARetrospective assessment (14)8494505459.1 (6.6 to 12.2)N/SN/SN/SN/S35.5 (>–1 D)6.7NoNo
  • N/S, not specified.

  • * Includes aphakic cases.

  • Mean refraction of all cases <50 years (95% CI).

  • Mean refraction and SD of all cases.