| Literature DB >> 27965889 |
Shengjie Li1, Aiping Zhang1, Wenjun Cao2, Xinghuai Sun3.
Abstract
Purpose. The aim of this meta-analysis was to clarify the association between the plasma endothelin-1 level and the risks of normal tension glaucoma (NTG) and primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG). Methods. Relevant publications were collected from three databases including PubMed, EMBASE, and the Web of Science through December 31, 2015. In this study, the terms "(endothelin OR ET) AND glaucoma" were searched. Review Manager 5.2 was used to process the data. Results. Seven studies (212 cases, 164 controls) were included for the NTG analysis. The mean plasma endothelin-1 level in the NTG subjects was 0.60 pg/mL (p = 0.02, 95% CI: 0.17-1.04) higher than that of the healthy controls. Six studies (160 cases, 174 controls) were included for the POAG analysis, and the endothelin-1 level was 0.63 pg/mL (p = 0.007, 95% CI: 0.12-1.15) higher in the POAG subjects than in the healthy controls. Additionally, two studies influenced the meta-analysis results regarding the association of plasma endothelin-1 with POAG by sensitivity analysis, and the probability of publication bias was low. Conclusions. The observation that NTG and POAG subjects showed significantly elevated endothelin-1 plasma concentrations suggests that a higher plasma level of endothelin-1 might increase the risk of NTG and POAG development.Entities:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27965889 PMCID: PMC5124679 DOI: 10.1155/2016/2678017
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Ophthalmol ISSN: 2090-004X Impact factor: 1.909
Figure 1Chart of the article search process.
Characteristics of the included studies.
| First author | Year | Country | Case | Control | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Age (years) | ET-1 (pg/mL) |
| Age (years) | ET-1 (pg/mL) | |||
| NTG studies | ||||||||
| Henry | 2006 | England | 8 | 58.12 ± 10.74 | 2.39 ± 0.41 | 8 | 59.37 ± 8.21 | 3.16 ± 0.54 |
| Lee | 2012 | Korea | 45 | 53.8 ± 11.8 | 1.3 ± 2.5 | 35 | 52.2 ± 13.9 | 0.4 ± 1.2 |
| Sugiyama | 1995 | Japan | 52 | 66.5 ± 11.6 | 3.46 ± 1.06 | 10 | 64.8 ± 19.1 | 2.55 ± 0.5 |
| Chen | 2013 | China | 18 | 47.06 ± 14.78 | 3.12 ± 1.48 | 37 | 51.97 ± 17.06 | 1.53 ± 1.5 |
| Kunimatsu | 2006 | Japan | 30 | 49.4 ± 8.8 | 1.49 ± 0.51 | 19 | 49.9 ± 5.6 | 1.33 ± 0.5 |
| Galassi | 2011 | Italy | 44 | 64.45 ± 6.91 | 1.62 ± 0.22 | 40 | 62.75 ± 7.37 | 1.12 ± 0.2 |
| Cellini | 1997 | Italy | 15 | 64.7 | 2.947 ± 0.217 | 15 | 65.8 | 1.720 ± 0.174 |
|
| ||||||||
| POAG studies | ||||||||
| Sugiyama | 1995 | Japan | 10 | 64.8 ± 19.1 | 3.05 ± 1.12 | 10 | 64.8 ± 19.1 | 2.55 ± 0.5 |
| Chen | 2013 | China | 31 | 48.94 ± 16.77 | 3.27 ± 1.26 | 37 | 51.97 ± 17.06 | 1.53 ± 1.5 |
| Nicolela | 2003 | Canada | 41 | 59.5 ± 12.6 | 2.81 ± 1.29 | 24 | 46.9 ± 9.7 | 2.56 ± 1.36 |
| Cellini | 2012 | Italy | 40 | 54.5 ± 10.2 | 2.83 ± 0.28 | 40 | 52.9 ± 7.1 | 1.75 ± 0.25 |
| Kunimatsu | 2006 | Japan | 18 | 44.7 ± 10.7 | 1.58 ± 0.64 | 19 | 49.9 ± 5.6 | 1.33 ± 0.5 |
| Holló | 1998 | Hungary | 20 | 61.5 ± 12.5 | 4.37 ± 2.06 | 44 | 65 ± 12.6 | 4.82 ± 2.08 |
N: number; data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD).
Figure 2Meta-analysis of the plasma ET-1 levels in the NTG and control groups. A random effects model was used to calculate the mean difference. CI: confidence interval; SD: standard deviation.
Figure 3Meta-analysis of the plasma ET-1 levels in the POAG and control groups. A random effects model was used to calculate the mean difference. CI: confidence interval; SD: standard deviation.
Sensitivity analysis by the leave-one-out strategy.
| Study omitted | Mean difference | 95% CI |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| NTG studies | |||
| None | 0.60 | 0.17–1.04 | 0.007 |
| Henry et al. 2006 | 0.82 | 0.40–1.24 | 0.0001 |
| Lee et al. 2012 | 0.57 | 0.10–1.04 | 0.02 |
| Sugiyama et al. 1995 | 0.55 | 0.06–1.04 | 0.03 |
| Chen et al. 2013 | 0.49 | 0.03–0.95 | 0.04 |
| Kunimatsu et al. 2006 | 0.69 | 0.20–1.18 | 0.006 |
| Galassi et al. 2011 | 0.64 | −0.02–1.31 | 0.06Δ |
| Cellini et al. 1997 | 0.47 | 0.03–0.90 | 0.03 |
|
| |||
| POAG studies | |||
| None | 0.63 | 0.12–1.15 | 0.02 |
| Sugiyama et al. 1995 | 0.65 | 0.07–1.23 | 0.03 |
| Chen et al. 2013 | 0.42 | −0.15–0.98 | 0.15 |
| Nicolela et al. 2003 | 0.71 | 0.14–1.27 | 0.01 |
| Cellini et al. 2012 | 0.50 | −0.14–1.14 | 0.12 |
| Kunimatsu et al. 2006 | 0.73 | 0.17–1.29 | 0.01 |
| Holló et al. 1998 | 0.77 | 0.26–1.228 | 0.003 |
CI = confidence interval, Δ for the influenced meta-analysis results regarding the association between plasma ET-1 and NTG, for the influenced meta-analysis results regarding the association between plasma ET-1 and POAG.
Figure 4Funnel plot analysis to detect publication bias between the plasma ET-1 level and the risk of POAG.
Figure 5Funnel plot analysis to detect publication bias between the plasma ET-1 level and the risk of NTG.