4.3 Review

Association of pseudoexfoliation syndrome with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Publisher

CANADIAN OPHTHAL SOC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcjo.2017.10.039

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Calgary Eye Foundation based in Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Pseudoexfoliation syndrome (PEX) is a systemic disease, but evidence of its association with cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cerebrovascular disease (CVA) is controversial. A quantitative systematic review will provide an accurate summary of the current body of the literature. Design: Meta-analysis. Participants: Not applicable. Methods: A comprehensive literature search of published and unpublished English-language studies was performed. Summary statistics were calculated using inverse variance weighting and are presented in forest plots. Sources of variance were evaluated statistically. Results: After screening 4547 studies, 47 articles were reviewed, and 25 eligible studies were selected that reported patients from around the world. Twenty studies enrolling 9583 individuals with PEX evaluated CVD, providing a summary odds ratio (OR) of 1.61 (95% CI 1.37-1.90). Eleven studies, enrolling 1308 PEX patients, evaluated CVA and generated a summary OR of 1.76 (1.40-2.22). For any vascular event (AVE) using all 25 studies, there were 9716 PEX patients and 363,312 control patients, yielding a summary OR of 1.64 (95% CI 1.39-1.92). Analysis for publication bias with the Egger's test was not significant for studies reporting CVD and AVE (p = 0.92 and 0.64, respectively) but was significant for CVA (p 0.03). Asymmetry of Begg's funnel plot was noted for the CVA and AVE analyses. Multiple sensitivity analyses were performed, including assessment of study quality; the OR for all 3 outcomes varied minimally and remained significant in all analyses. Conclusion: There is strong evidence that PEX is significantly associated with both CVD and CVA.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available