| Literature DB >> 36188106 |
Guimei Huang1, Jiayi Wang2, Lei Li3, Yuan Gao3, Yijie Yan3.
Abstract
Objective: We aimed to explore the effect of blood lipid parameters on the risk of primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) by meta-analysis.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36188106 PMCID: PMC9519322 DOI: 10.1155/2022/1122994
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Math Methods Med ISSN: 1748-670X Impact factor: 2.809
Figure 1Literature screening flowchart.
The basic information of reported studies on the risk of dyslipidemia.
| Author | Year | Research type | Data sources | OAG diagnostic criteria | Diagnostic criteria of dyslipidemia | Inclusion period | Age |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jung et al. [ | 2020 | Cohort | KNHIS-NSC 2002-2013 | Complied with ICD-10 H40.1 and received the prescription of anti-glaucoma drugs during the study period | Hypercholesterolemia: Conformed to ICD-10 E78; received cholesterol drug prescription or TC ≥ 240 mg/dL | 2002-2008 | ≥65 years old, accounting for 16.2% |
| Rim et al. [ | 2018 | Case-control | KNHIS-NSC 2002-2013 | Complied with KCD H401 and received the prescription of antiglaucoma drugs during the study period | Hyperlipidemia: accorded to KCD classification | 2004-2007 | Middle aged and elderly people |
| Lee et al. [ | 2017 | Cross-sectional | KNHANES 2008-2012 | Complied with MISGEO-K | Hyperlipidemia: received cholesterol drug prescription or TC ≥ 240 mg/dL | 2008-2012 | >40 years old |
| Chen et al. [ | 2016 | Case-control | NHI | Complied with ICD-9-CM 365.11 | Hyperlipidemia: ICD-9-CM 272 | 2001-2011 | >40 years old, with an average of 57 years old |
| Kim et al. [ | 2016 | Cross-sectional | KNHANES 2010-2012 | Complied with ISGEO | Hyperlipidemia: TG ≥ 150 mg/dL or cholesterol drug treatment | 2008-2012 | >40 years old, with an average of 56 years old |
| Chung et al. [ | 2014 | Cross-sectional | the Longitudinal Health Insurance Database 2000 (LHID2000) of NHI | Complied with ICD-9-CM 365.1 or 365.11 | Not mentioned | 2002 -2012 | ≥18 years old |
| Newman-Casey et al. [ | 2011 | Cohort | US i3 InVision data Mart database | ICD-9-CM 365.1, 365.10, 365.11, 365.12 and 365.15 | Hyperlipidemia: ICD-9-CM | 2001-2007 | >40 years old |
| Lin et al. [ | 2010 | Case-control | NHI | ICD-9-CM 365.1-365.11 | Elixhauser comorbidity index [ | 2005 | >40 years old |
| Motsko and Jones [ | 2008 | Case-control | US Ingenix LabRx database | ICD-9-CM 365.1 | Lipid metabolism disorder: ICD-9-CM 272 | 2001-2004 | With an average of 73.6 years old |
| Girkin et al. [ | 2004 | Cohort | The Birmingham (Alabama) Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center (BVAMC) | ICD-9-CM 365.1 | Lipid metabolism disorder: ICD-9-CM 272 | 1997-2002 | >50 years old |
| Kim et al. [ | 2016 | Cross-sectional | KNHANES 2008-2011 | MISGEOCK I or II standard | Disorder of lipid metabolism: TC > 200 mg/dL or LDLC > 130 mg/dL or HDLC < 60 mg/dL or TG > 150 mg/dL | 2008-2011 | >40 years old, with an average age of 59.7 years old |
Note: The Korean National Health Insurance System-National Sample Cohort (KNHIS-NSC), Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES), the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10), Korean Classification of Diseases (KCD), the Modified International Society of Geographical and Epidemiological Ophthalmology Criteria for the Korean Population (MISGEO-K), the Modified International Society of Geographical and Epidemiological Ophthalmology Criteria (MISGEO), the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM), Taiwan National Health Insurance plan (NHI), and the International Society of Geographical and Epidemiological Ophthalmology Criteria (ISGEOC).
The basic situation of reported studies on blood lipid level and disease risk.
| Authors | Year | Research type | Data sources | OAG diagnostic criteria | Report blood lipid parameters | Blood lipid unit | Inclusion period | Age |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lei et al.[ | 2020 | Case-control | Collected by Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences; eye, ear, nose, and throat, Hospital of Fudan University | Complied with ISGEOC standards | TG, TC | Per mmol/L | 2017 | Average age of 60 years old |
| Shon and Sung [ | 2019 | Cross-sectional | KNHANES 2018-2020 | Complied with ISGEOC standards | TG, TC, HDLC | Per SD | 2008-2012 | Average age of 63 years old |
| Wu [ | 2019 | Case-control | Shantou University -Chinese University of Hong Kong joint Shantou international eye center | POAG includes HTG and NTG, which need to meet the inclusion criteria, respectively | TG, TC, HDLC, LDLC | Per mmol/L | —— | >40 years old |
| Tang et al.[ | 2017 | Case-control | Eye, ear, nose, and throat, Hospital of Fudan University | Not mentioned | TC, HDLC | Per mmol/L | 2015-2016 | Average age of 40 years old |
| Kim, et al.[ | 2014 | Cross-sectional | KNHANES 2009–2010 | Complied with ISGEOC standards | TG, TC, HDLC, LDLC | Per mg/dL | 2009–2010 | 19-39 years old |
Note: Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES), the Modified International Society of Geographical and Epidemiological Ophthalmology Criteria (ISGEO), the Modified International Society of Geographical and Epidemiological Ophthalmology Criteria for the Korean Population (MISGEO-K), total cholesterol (TC), total triglyceride (TG), high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), and low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C).
Evaluation scores of included studies using the Viswanathan M design scale.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 总分 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jung et al. [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 10 |
| Rim et al. [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 10 |
| Lee et al. [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 10 |
| Chen et al. [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 11 |
| Kim et al. [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 10 |
| Chung et al. [ | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 6 |
| Newman-Casey et al. [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 10 |
| Lin et al. [ | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 6 |
| Motsko and Jones. [ | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 7 |
| Girkin et al. [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 9 |
| Kim et al. [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 10 |
| Lei et al. [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 10 |
| Shon and Sung [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 10 |
| Wu et al. [ | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 9 |
| Tang et al. [ | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 9 |
Note: Quality criteria and evaluation of design and data analysis for observational studies criteria (1) Was the research question or objective in this paper clearly stated? (2) Was the study population clearly specified and defined? (3) Was the study population representative of the general population? (4) Was the participation rate of eligible persons at least 50%? (5) Were all the subjects selected or recruited from the same or similar populations (including the same time period)? Were inclusion and exclusion criteria for being in the study prespecified and applied uniformly to all participants? (6) Were sample size justification, power description, or variance and effect estimates provided? (7) For the analyses in this paper, were the exposures of interest measured prior to the outcomes being measured? (8) Was the time frame sufficient so that one could reasonably expect to see an association between exposure and outcome if it existed? (9) Were the exposure measures (independent variables) clearly defined, objective, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants? (10) Were the exposures assessed more than once over time? (11) Were the outcome measures (dependent variables) clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants? (12) Were the outcome assessors blinded to the exposure status of participants? (13) Was the statistical analysis appropriate? (14) Was loss to follow-up after baseline 20% or less? (15) Were the key potential confounding variables measured and adjusted statistically for their impact on the relationship between exposures and outcomes? (1: yes; 0: no or not applicable).
Figure 2Forest chart reporting the study on the relationship between dyslipidemia and the risk of POAG.
Figure 3Forest map reporting the odds ratio for POAG risk by TG level.
Figure 4Forest map reporting the study on the association between total cholesterol and POAG risk.
Figure 5Forest map reporting the study on the association between HDLC and POAG risk.