4.7 Article

Rates of Progression in Diabetic Retinopathy During Different Time Periods A systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 32, 期 12, 页码 2307-2313

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/dc09-0615

关键词

-

资金

  1. Pfizer
  2. Glostrup Hospital
  3. Eli Lilly
  4. Novartis
  5. Carl Zeiss Meditec
  6. Alcon

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE - This Meta-analysis reviews rates of progression of diabetic retinopathy to proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) and/or severe visual loss (SVL) and temporal trends. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - This systematic literature review and meta-analysis of prospective studies assesses progression of retinopathy among diabetic patients without treatment for retinopathy at baseline. Studies published between 1975 to February 2008 were identified. Outcomes of interest were rates of progression to PDR and/or SVL. Pooled baseline characteristics and Outcome measures were summarized using weighted averages of counts and means. Baseline characteristics and outcomes were compared between two periods: 1975-1985 and 1986-2008. RESULTS - A total of 28 Studies comprising 27,120 diabetic patients (mean age 49.8 years) were included. After 4 years, pooled incidence rates for PDR and SVL were 11.0 and 7.2%, respectively. Rates were lower among participants in 1986-2008 than in 1975-1985. After 10 years, similar patterns were observed. Participants in 1986-2008 studies had lower proportions of PDR and non-PDR at all time points than participants in 1975-1985 studies. CONCLUSIONS - Since 1985, diabetic patients have lower rates of progression to PDR and SVL. These findings may reflect an increased awareness of retinopathy risk factors; earlier identification and initiation of care for patients with retinopathy and improved medical management of glucose, blood pressure, and serum lipids. Differences in baseline characteristics, particularly in the prevalence and severity of retinopathy, could also have contributed to these temporal differences.

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

4.7
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