4.1 Article

Optical coherence tomography assessed retinal nerve fiber layer thickness in patients with Alzheimer's disease: a meta-analysis

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 5, Issue 3, Pages 401-405

Publisher

IJO PRESS
DOI: 10.3980/j.issn.2222-3959.2012.03.30

Keywords

retinal nerve fiber layer thickness; optical coherence tomography; Alzheimer's disease; meta analysis

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

AIM: To investigate the difference of retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness between Alzheimer's disease patients and normal people, so as to provide clue for the early diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease. METHODS: The articles on the association of RNFL thickness and Alzheimer's disease were retrieved by searching international and national databases. The qualified articles were assessed by meta analysis with Stata11.0 software. The results were pooled using weighted mean difference (WMD) with a corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Totally 7 studies enrolled 324 eyes were included in the meta-analysis. The results of meta analysis showed that in AD patients, there was a significant average RNFL thickness reduction compared with the control group [WMD=-17.561, 95% CI: (-23.971, -11.151)]. There were significant differences in superior, inferior, nasal and temporal RNFL thickness between the two groups. WMD with a 95%CI were [-18.829, 95%CI:(-25.915, -11.743); p<0.05], [-25.775, 95%CI:(-34.304, -17.247); P<0.05], [-16.877, 95%CI: (-29.141, -4.613); p<0.001] and [-14.565, 95%CI:(-28.002, -1.128); p<0.001] respectively. Begg's test and Egger's test did not show significant difference, funnel plot was basically symmetrical, indicating that there was no publication bias existed. CONCLUSION: There are significant differences in the RNFL thickness in all quadrants between the two groups. RNFL thickness is reduced in AD patients compared with the control group.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available