Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Prevalence and risk factors of epiretinal membranes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based studies
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Prevalence and risk factors of epiretinal membranes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based studies
Do you wish to request the book?
Prevalence and risk factors of epiretinal membranes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based studies
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Prevalence and risk factors of epiretinal membranes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based studies
2017
Overview
ObjectiveThis study was to aggregate the prevalence and risks of epiretinal membranes (ERMs) and determine the possible causes of the varied estimates.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesThe search strategy was designed prospectively. We searched PubMed, Embase and Web of Science databases from inception to July 2016. Reference lists of the included literatures were reviewed as well.Study selectionSurveys published in English language from any population were included if they had a population-based design and reported the prevalence of ERM from retinal photography with or without optical coherence tomography. Eligibility and quality evaluation was conducted independently by two investigators.Data extractionThe literature search generated 2144 records, and 13 population-based studies comprising 49 697 subjects were finally included. The prevalence of ERM and the ORs of potential risk factors (age, sex, myopia, hypertension and so on) were extracted.ResultsThe pooled age-standardised prevalence estimates of earlier ERM (cellophane macular reflex (CMR)), advanced ERM (preretinal macular fibrosis (PMF)) and any ERM were 6.5% (95% CI 4.2% to 8.9%), 2.6% (95% CI 1.8% to 3.4%) and 9.1% (95% CI 6.0% to 12.2%), respectively. In the subgroup analysis, race and photography modality contributed to the variation in the prevalence estimates of PMF, while the WHO regions and image reading methods were associated with the varied prevalence of CMR and any ERM. Meta-analysis showed that only greater age and female significantly conferred a higher risk of ERMs.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that ERMs are relatively common among aged population. Race, image taking and reading methodology may play important roles in influencing the large variability of ERM prevalence estimates.
Publisher
BMJ Publishing Group LTD,BMJ Publishing Group
