PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: This meta-analysis was conducted to collect all available data and estimate the relationship between refractive error and the risk of diabetic retinopathy (DR) in patients with diabetes, and to assess whether vision-threatening DR (VTDR) is associated with refractive error.
UNASSIGNED: We systematically searched several literature databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, CBM, Wan Fang Data, and VIP databases. Pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using fixed or random effects models. Four models were developed to assess the relationship between refractive error and the risk and DR, VTDR: hyperopia and DR, VTDR; myopia and DR, VTDR; spherical equivalent (SE per D increase) and DR, VTDR; and axial length (AL per mm increase) and DR, VTDR. The included literature was meta-analyzed using Stata 12.0 software, and sensitivity analysis was performed. Publication bias in the literature was evaluated using a funnel plot, Begg\'s test, and Egger\'s test.
UNASSIGNED: A systematic search identified 3,198 articles, of which 21 (4 cohorts, 17 cross-sectional studies) were included in the meta-analysis. Meta-analysis showed that hyperopia was associated with an increased risk of VTDR (OR: 1.23; 95% CI: 1.08-1.39; P = 0.001), but not with DR (OR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.94-1.17; P = 0.374). Myopia was associated with a reduced risk of DR (OR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.61-0.90; P = 0.003), but not with VTDR (OR: 1.08; 95% CI: 0.85-1.38; P = 0.519). Every 1 diopter increase in spherical equivalent, there was a 1.08 increase in the odds ratio of DR (OR: 1.08; 95% CI: 1.05-1.10; P<0.001), but not with VTDR (OR: 1.05; 95% CI: 1.00-1.10; P = 0.06). AL per mm increase was significantly associated with a decreased risk of developing DR (OR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.71-0.84; P<0.001) and VTDR (OR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.56-0.72; P<0.001). Analysis of sensitivity confirmed the reliability of the study\'s findings.
UNASSIGNED: This meta-analysis demonstrates hyperopia was associated with an increased risk of VTDR in diabetes patients. Myopia was associated with a reduced risk of DR. AL is an important influencing factor of refractive error. Every 1 mm increase in AL reduces the risk of DR by 23% and the risk of VTDR by 37%.
UNASSIGNED: identifier: CRD42023413420.
UNASSIGNED: We systematically searched several literature databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, CBM, Wan Fang Data, and VIP databases. Pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using fixed or random effects models. Four models were developed to assess the relationship between refractive error and the risk and DR, VTDR: hyperopia and DR, VTDR; myopia and DR, VTDR; spherical equivalent (SE per D increase) and DR, VTDR; and axial length (AL per mm increase) and DR, VTDR. The included literature was meta-analyzed using Stata 12.0 software, and sensitivity analysis was performed. Publication bias in the literature was evaluated using a funnel plot, Begg\'s test, and Egger\'s test.
UNASSIGNED: A systematic search identified 3,198 articles, of which 21 (4 cohorts, 17 cross-sectional studies) were included in the meta-analysis. Meta-analysis showed that hyperopia was associated with an increased risk of VTDR (OR: 1.23; 95% CI: 1.08-1.39; P = 0.001), but not with DR (OR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.94-1.17; P = 0.374). Myopia was associated with a reduced risk of DR (OR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.61-0.90; P = 0.003), but not with VTDR (OR: 1.08; 95% CI: 0.85-1.38; P = 0.519). Every 1 diopter increase in spherical equivalent, there was a 1.08 increase in the odds ratio of DR (OR: 1.08; 95% CI: 1.05-1.10; P<0.001), but not with VTDR (OR: 1.05; 95% CI: 1.00-1.10; P = 0.06). AL per mm increase was significantly associated with a decreased risk of developing DR (OR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.71-0.84; P<0.001) and VTDR (OR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.56-0.72; P<0.001). Analysis of sensitivity confirmed the reliability of the study\'s findings.
UNASSIGNED: This meta-analysis demonstrates hyperopia was associated with an increased risk of VTDR in diabetes patients. Myopia was associated with a reduced risk of DR. AL is an important influencing factor of refractive error. Every 1 mm increase in AL reduces the risk of DR by 23% and the risk of VTDR by 37%.
UNASSIGNED: identifier: CRD42023413420.
摘要：
■进行了这项荟萃分析，以收集所有可用数据，并估计糖尿病患者的屈光不正与糖尿病视网膜病变（DR）风险之间的关系，并评估视力威胁DR（VTDR）是否与屈光不正相关。
■我们系统地搜索了几个文献数据库，包括PubMed，Embase,科克伦图书馆,WebofScience,CNKI,CBM,万方数据,VIP数据库。使用固定或随机效应模型计算汇总优势比（OR）和95％置信区间（CI）。开发了四个模型来评估屈光不正与风险和DR之间的关系，VTDR：远视和DR，VTDR；近视和DR，VTDR；球面当量（SE每D增加）和DR，VTDR;和轴向长度（每毫米增加AL）和DR，VTDR.纳入文献采用Stata12.0软件进行荟萃分析，并进行敏感性分析。文献中的出版偏倚是用漏斗图评估的，Begg\'stest,和Egger的测试。
■系统搜索确定了3,198篇文章，其中21人(4个队列，17项横断面研究)被纳入荟萃分析。Meta分析显示远视与VTDR风险增加相关(OR:1.23;95%CI:1.08-1.39;P=0.001),但与DR无关（OR：1.05；95%CI：0.94-1.17；P=0.374）。近视与DR风险降低相关(OR:0.74;95%CI:0.61-0.90;P=0.003),而非VTDR（OR：1.08；95%CI：0.85-1.38；P=0.519）。等效球面每增加1屈光度,DR的比值比增加了1.08（OR：1.08；95％CI：1.05-1.10；P<0.001），而非VTDR（OR：1.05；95%CI：1.00-1.10；P=0.06）。每毫米AL的增加与发生DR（OR：0.77;95％CI：0.71-0.84;P<0.001）和VTDR（OR：0.63;95％CI：0.56-0.72;P<0.001）的风险降低显着相关。敏感性分析证实了研究结果的可靠性。
■这项荟萃分析显示远视与糖尿病患者VTDR风险增加有关。近视与DR风险降低有关。AL是影响屈光不正的重要身分。AL每增加1mm，DR风险降低23%，VTDR风险降低37%。
■标识符：CRD42023413420。
■我们系统地搜索了几个文献数据库，包括PubMed，Embase,科克伦图书馆,WebofScience,CNKI,CBM,万方数据,VIP数据库。使用固定或随机效应模型计算汇总优势比（OR）和95％置信区间（CI）。开发了四个模型来评估屈光不正与风险和DR之间的关系，VTDR：远视和DR，VTDR；近视和DR，VTDR；球面当量（SE每D增加）和DR，VTDR;和轴向长度（每毫米增加AL）和DR，VTDR.纳入文献采用Stata12.0软件进行荟萃分析，并进行敏感性分析。文献中的出版偏倚是用漏斗图评估的，Begg\'stest,和Egger的测试。
■系统搜索确定了3,198篇文章，其中21人(4个队列，17项横断面研究)被纳入荟萃分析。Meta分析显示远视与VTDR风险增加相关(OR:1.23;95%CI:1.08-1.39;P=0.001),但与DR无关（OR：1.05；95%CI：0.94-1.17；P=0.374）。近视与DR风险降低相关(OR:0.74;95%CI:0.61-0.90;P=0.003),而非VTDR（OR：1.08；95%CI：0.85-1.38；P=0.519）。等效球面每增加1屈光度,DR的比值比增加了1.08（OR：1.08；95％CI：1.05-1.10；P<0.001），而非VTDR（OR：1.05；95%CI：1.00-1.10；P=0.06）。每毫米AL的增加与发生DR（OR：0.77;95％CI：0.71-0.84;P<0.001）和VTDR（OR：0.63;95％CI：0.56-0.72;P<0.001）的风险降低显着相关。敏感性分析证实了研究结果的可靠性。
■这项荟萃分析显示远视与糖尿病患者VTDR风险增加有关。近视与DR风险降低有关。AL是影响屈光不正的重要身分。AL每增加1mm，DR风险降低23%，VTDR风险降低37%。
■标识符：CRD42023413420。
