4.6 Review

Malondialdehyde levels in diabetic retinopathy patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

CHINESE MEDICAL JOURNAL
卷 136, 期 11, 页码 1311-1321

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/CM9.0000000000002620

关键词

Malondialdehyde; Diabetic retinopathy; Lipid peroxidation; Oxidative stress

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This systematic review compared circulating malondialdehyde (MDA) levels in people with and without diabetic retinopathy (DR). The results showed that circulating MDA levels were higher in people with DR compared to those without.
Background: It remains unclear whether circulating malondialdehyde (MDA) levels change in people with diabetic retinopathy (DR). This systematic review compared circulating MDA levels in diabetic people with and without DR.Methods: PubMed, Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), and Web of Science were searched for case-control studies conducted before May 2022 in English that compared circulating MDA levels in people with and without DR. The following MeSH search terms were used: (malondialdehyde or thiobarbituric acid reactive substances [TBARS] or lipid peroxidation or oxidative stress) and diabetic retinopathy. Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. Random-effects pairwise meta-analysis pooled the effect size with standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).Results: This meta-analysis included 29 case-control studies with 1680 people with DR and 1799 people with diabetes but not DR. Compared to people without DR, the circulating MDA levels were higher in those with DR (SMD, 0.897; 95% CI, 0.631 to 1.162; P < 0.001). The study did not identify credible subgroup effects or publication bias and the sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the study.Conclusions: Circulating MDA levels are higher in people with DR compared to those without. Future comparative studies that use more specific methods are required to draw firm conclusions.

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