4.6 Article

Prevalence and Risk Factors for Myopic Retinopathy in a Japanese Population The Hisayama Study

期刊

OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 119, 期 9, 页码 1760-1765

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.02.034

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To examine the prevalence of myopic retinopathy and its risk factors in a general Japanese population. Design: Population-based, cross-sectional study. Participants: In 2005, a total of 1969 Hisayama residents aged >= 40 years consented to participate in this study. Of these, 1892 subjects with adequate data were enrolled. Methods: Each participant underwent comprehensive physical and eye examinations that included measurements of refractive error, axial lengths, and color fundus photography. Myopic retinopathy was defined as the presence of diffuse chorioretinal atrophy, patchy chorioretinal atrophy, lacquer cracks, or macular atrophy. Main Outcome Measures: Prevalence of myopic retinopathy. Results: Thirty-three participants had myopic retinopathy and the prevalence was 1.7% (2.2% in women and 1.2% in men). The prevalence of myopic retinopathy increased significantly with advancing age. Diffuse chorioretinal atrophy, patchy chorioretinal atrophy, lacquer cracks, and macular atrophy were present in 1.7%, 0.4%, 0.2%, and 0.4% of subjects, respectively. In multivariate analysis, myopic retinopathy was significantly associated with older age (per 1 year: odds ratio [OR], 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-1.18), female gender (OR, 3.29; 95% CI, 1.09 -9.92), and longer axial length (per 1 mm: OR, 4.20; 95% CI, 3.03-5.83). Conclusions: The prevalence of myopic retinopathy was 1.7% in a general Japanese population. Older age, female gender, and longer axial length were significant risk factors for myopic retinopathy. Financial Disclosure(s): The authors have no proprietary or commercial interest in any of the materials discussed in this article. Ophthalmology 2012; 119: 1760-1765 (C) 2012 by the American Academy of Ophthalmology.

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

4.6
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