PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
September 1, 2017BMJ Open155 citationsOpen Access

Prevalence and risk factors of epiretinal membranes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based studies

WXWei XiaoXCXiaoyun ChenWYWilliam Yan

Key Points

  • To aggregate the prevalence and risks of epiretinal membranes (ERMs) and identify causes for diverse prevalence estimates.
  • Conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based studies.
  • Included 13 studies with 49,697 subjects from searches of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science.
  • Extracted data on prevalence and odds ratios (ORs) for risk factors like age, sex, and myopia.
  • Pooled age-standardized prevalence of earlier ERM was 6.5% (95% CI 4.2% to 8.9%).
  • Advanced ERM prevalence was 2.6% (95% CI 1.8% to 3.4%), and any ERM prevalence was 9.1% (95% CI 6.0% to 12.2%).
  • Greater age and female sex were significantly associated with increased risk of ERMs.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study was to aggregate the prevalence and risks of epiretinal membranes (ERMs) and determine the possible causes of the varied estimates. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: The 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 SELECTION: Surveys 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 EXTRACTION: The 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. RESULTS: The 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. CONCLUSIONS: Our 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.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Xiao et al. (2017) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a329251bc39a01e6d58599ehttps://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014644
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper