4.1 Article

Prevalence and Associated Factors of Keratoconus in Jerusalem: A Cross-sectional Study

期刊

OPHTHALMIC EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 18, 期 2, 页码 91-97

出版社

INFORMA HEALTHCARE
DOI: 10.3109/09286586.2011.560747

关键词

Keratoconus; Prevalence; Risk factors; Prevalence men; Prevalence women

资金

  1. National Institute of Psychobiology, Israel

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To determine the prevalence and associated factors for keratoconus in a college student population sample in Jerusalem. Methods: Volunteers participated in this cross-sectional study. Videokeratography was performed on both eyes of each subject who also completed an anonymous questionnaire. Keratoconus was defined by cone apex >= a parts per thousand yen 50D, inferior-superior dioptric difference >= a parts per thousand yen 3.5 diopters, as well as positive results from the software indices KISA, KCI and KSI. The association between independent predictors and keratoconus was analyzed using multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results: Of a total of 987 volunteers, 981 (mean age 24.4) were included. The prevalence of keratoconus among all subjects was 2.34% (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.4--3.3). It was significantly higher in men (4.91%, CI 2.6--7.3) than women (1.07%, CI 0.3--1.9) but not between Israeli Arabs (3.0%, CI 0.6--5.4) and Israeli Jews (2.2%, CI 1.2--3.3). Keratoconus was significantly associated with positive family history of the disease (Odds Ratio [OR] 17.1, CI 5.0--57.8, P < 0.001), male gender (OR 5.4, CI 2.1--14.3, P == 0.001) and atopy (OR 3.0, CI 1.2--7.6, P == 0.02), but not with eye rubbing. Conclusions: The prevalence of keratoconus in Jerusalem was found to be much higher than that seen in other parts of the world, except India. This may be related to a combination of genetic and environmental factors. Positive family history, male gender and atopy were shown to be significant predictors. The results of this study signal a need for public health outreach and intervention for keratoconus.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据