4.3 Article

Systemic immune-inflammation index, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio levels are associated with keratoconus

期刊

INDIAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 69, 期 7, 页码 1725-1729

出版社

WOLTERS KLUWER MEDKNOW PUBLICATIONS
DOI: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_3011_20

关键词

Inflammation; keratoconus; neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio; platelet/lymphocyte ratio; red cell distribution width; systemic immune-inflammation index

向作者/读者索取更多资源

SII, NLR, RDW, and PLR levels were significantly increased in patients with KC. SII may be a much better marker than NLR and PLR for predicting the inflammatory status of the disease.
Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess the systemic immune-inflammation index (SII) levels, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) in patients with keratoconus (KC). Methods: A total of 42 patients with KC (KC group) and 42 age- and sex-matched healthy subjects (control group) were included into this cross sectional study. Complete blood count parameters were assayed. SII, NLR, red cell distribution width (RDW), and PLR values were calculated. The SII value was calculated as follows: platelet count x (neutrophil/lymphocyte). Results: SII, NLR, RDW, and PLR values were significantly higher in KC group compared to control group [709 +/- 236 vs. 418 +/- 117 (P < 0.001), 2.5 +/- 0.8 vs. 1.76 +/- 0.3 (P < 0.001), 14.3 +/- 1.6% vs. 12.9 +/- 0.54% (P < 0.001), and 143 +/- 36 vs. 106 +/- 23 (P < 0.001), respectively]. Using the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis to predict KC, the highest area under the curve (AUC) was determined SII (0.846 for SII, 0.778 for NLR, and 0.796 for PLR). Conclusion: SII, NLR, RDW, and PLR levels were significantly increased in patients with KC. This study supports the idea that several inflammatory pathways may play important role in the pathogenesis of this disorder. SII may be much better marker than NLR and PLR for predicting the inflammatory status of the disease.

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

4.3
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