4.4 Review

The Prevalence and Risk Factors for Keratoconus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

期刊

CORNEA
卷 39, 期 2, 页码 263-270

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000002150

关键词

keratoconus; risk factors; meta-analysis

资金

  1. Noor Research Center for Ophthalmic Epidemiology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: This study was conducted to determine the prevalence and risk factors for keratoconus worldwide. Methods: In this meta-analysis, using a structured search strategy from 2 sources, 4 electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Scopus) and the reference lists of the selected articles were searched from inception to June 2018 with no restrictions and filters. The outcome of the study was the prevalence of keratoconus and its risk factors, including eye rubbing, family history of keratoconus, atopy, allergy, asthma, eczema, diabetes type I and type II, and sex. Results: In this study, 3996 articles were retrieved, of which 29 were analyzed. These 29 articles included 7,158,241 participants from 15 countries. The prevalence of keratoconus in the whole population was 1.38 per 1000 population [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.14-1.62 per 1000]. The prevalence of keratoconus was 20.6 per 1000 (95% CI: 11.68-28.44 per 1000) in men and 18.33 per 1000 (95% CI: 8.66-28.00 per 1000) in women in studies reporting sex. The odds ratio of eye rubbing, family history of keratoconus, allergy, asthma, and eczema was 3.09 (95% CI: 2.17-4.00), 6.42 (95% CI: 2.59-10.24), 1.42 (95% CI: 1.06-1.79), 1.94 (95% CI: 1.30-2.58), and 2.95 (95% CI: 1.30-4.59), respectively. Conclusions: The results of this study, as the most comprehensive meta-analysis of keratoconus prevalence and risk factors, showed that keratoconus had a low prevalence in the world and eye rubbing, family history of keratoconus, allergy, asthma, and eczema were the most important risk factors for keratoconus according to the available evidence.

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

4.4
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