4.6 Article

Meibomian Gland Dysfunction and Dry Eye Are Similar but Different Based on a Population-Based Study: The Hirado-Takushima Study in Japan

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 207, 期 -, 页码 410-418

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2019.02.024

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: To evaluate the prevalence and risk factors of and the relationship between meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) and dry eye (DE) in Japan. DESIGN: A population-based cross-sectional study. METHODS: Participants filled in questionnaires regarding ocular symptoms, systemic diseases, and lifestyle factors. Meibomian gland-related parameters and tear film-related parameters were evaluated. Risk factors for MGD and DE were analyzed by using univariate and multivariate logistic regression. Age-specific prevalence of MGD and DE was estimated by using a general additive model with degree-3 natural splines. The structural relation between MGD and DE was assessed by factor analysis using the principal components method and promax rotation. RESULTS: A total of 356 residents of Takushima Island (133 males, 223 females) at the mean +/- SD age of 55.5 +/- 22.4 years (range, 6-96 years) were enrolled. The prevalence of MGD and DE was 32.9% and 33.4%, respectively, with a coexistence rate of 12.9%. The prevalence of MGD was associated with male sex (odds ratio [OR], 2.42), age (OR per decade increment,1.53), and oral intake of lipid-lowering agents (OR, 3.22). The prevalence of DE was associated with female sex (OR, 3.36), contact lens wear (OR, 2.84), conjunctivochalasis (OR, 2.57), and lid margin abnormalities (OR, 3.16). The age-specific prevalence of MGD and DE differed, and factor analysis for 16 parameters showed that MGD and DE had independent hidden sources (interfactor correlation, - 0.017). CONCLUSIONS: MGD and DE are common in this population. Although their ocular symptoms are similar, the pathogenesis of MGD differs from that of DE. (C) 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.

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