3.8 Article

A case-control study on risk factors for nuclear, cortical and posterior subcapsular cataract:: The Casteldaccia Eye Study

期刊

ACTA OPHTHALMOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA
卷 83, 期 5, 页码 567-573

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0420.2005.00475.x

关键词

cataract; epidemiology; risk factors; iris atrophy; case-control study

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To investigate risk factors for nuclear, cortical and posterior subcapsular age-related cataract. Methods: A case-control study was carried out on subjects aged 40 years and older, living in Casteldaccia, Sicily. Twenty-seven potential risk factors were investigated. Nuclear, cortical and posterior subcapsular opacities of the lens were classified according to the Lens Opacities Classification System II. Subjects with advanced lens opacities represented the cases, while an identical number of subjects without or with early cataract, matched for sex and age, were recruited as controls from within the same population. Results: Univariate analysis showed that myopia and iris atrophy were significantly associated with nuclear cataract. Iris atrophy, use of corticosteroids, pseudoexfoliation syndrome and familial occurrence of cataract were positively correlated with cortical cataract. Myopia, iris atrophy, use of corticosteroids and familial occurrence of cataract presented an association with posterior subcapsular cataract. After multivariate analysis, the variables that remained significantly associated were myopia and iris atrophy for nuclear cataract; iris atrophy, pseudoexfoliation syndrome and familial occurrence of cataract for cortical cataract; and myopia, iris atrophy and familial occurrence of cataract for posterior subcapsular cataract. Conclusion: In addition to well known risk factors such as myopia or use of corticosteroids, the Casteldaccia case-control study shows that iris atrophy represents a previously unrecognized risk factor for each of the three types of cataract.

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

3.8
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