Dataset Information

Refractive Errors and Concomitant Strabismus: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: This systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the risk of development of concomitant strabismus due to refractive errors. Eligible studies published from 1946 to April 1, 2016 were identified from MEDLINE and EMBASE that evaluated any kinds of refractive errors (myopia, hyperopia, astigmatism and anisometropia) as an independent factor for concomitant exotropia and concomitant esotropia. Totally 5065 published records were retrieved for screening, 157 of them eligible for detailed evaluation. Finally 7 population-based studies involving 23,541 study subjects met our criteria for meta-analysis. The combined OR showed that myopia was a risk factor for exotropia (OR: 5.23, P?=?0.0001). We found hyperopia had a dose-related effect for esotropia (OR for a spherical equivalent [SE] of 2-3 diopters [D]: 10.16, P?=?0.01; OR for an SE of 3-4D: 17.83, P?

SUBMITTER: Tang SM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5059633 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Refractive Errors and Concomitant Strabismus: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Tang Shu Min SM Chan Rachel Y T RY Bin Lin Shi S Rong Shi Song SS Lau Henry H W HH Lau Winnie W Y WW Yip Wilson W K WW Chen Li Jia LJ Ko Simon T C ST Yam Jason C S JC

Scientific reports 20161012

This systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the risk of development of concomitant strabismus due to refractive errors. Eligible studies published from 1946 to April 1, 2016 were identified from MEDLINE and EMBASE that evaluated any kinds of refractive errors (myopia, hyperopia, astigmatism and anisometropia) as an independent factor for concomitant exotropia and concomitant esotropia. Totally 5065 published records were retrieved for screening, 157 of them eligible for detailed eval ...[more]

PMID: 27731389

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Common complications of pediatric strabismus surgery, including emergence agitation (EA), postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and postoperative pain, may be prevented using dexmedetomidine, which is an anxiolytic and analgesic. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the effects of dexmedetomidine in patients who had undergone pediatric strabismus surgery. METHOD:Five databases were searched for randomized controlled trials published from database inception to April 2020 that compared dexmedetomidine use with placebo or active comparator use and evaluated EA, PONV, or postoperative pain incidence (main outcomes) in patients who had undergone pediatric strabismus surgery. Oculocardiac reflex (OCR) incidence and postanesthesia care unit (PACU) stay duration were considered as safety outcomes. All meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model. RESULTS:In the nine studies meeting our inclusion criteria, compared with placebo use, dexmedetomidine use reduced EA incidence [risk ratio (RR): 0.39; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.25-0.62, I2 = 66%], severe EA incidence (RR: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.17-0.43, I2 = 0%), PONV incidence (RR: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.21-0.54, I2 = 0%), analgesia requirement (RR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.25-0.57, I2 = 0%), and pain scores (standardized mean difference: -1.02, 95% CI: -1.44 to -0.61, I2 = 75%). Dexmedetomidine also led to lower EA incidence in the sevoflurane group than in the desflurane group (RR: 0.26 for sevoflurane vs. 0.45 for desflurane). Continuous dexmedetomidine infusion (RR: 0.19) led to better EA incidence reduction than did bolus dexmedetomidine infusion at the end of surgery (RR: 0.26) or during the peri-induction period (RR: 0.36). Compared with placebo use, dexmedetomidine use reduced OCR incidence (RR: 0.63; I2 = 40%). No significant between-group differences were noted for PACU stay duration. CONCLUSION:In patients who have undergone pediatric strabismus surgery, dexmedetomidine use may alleviate EA, PONV, and postoperative pain and reduce OCR incidence. Moreover, dexmedetomidine use does not affect the PACU stay duration.

Project description:Inhaler device errors are common and may impact the effectiveness of the delivered drug. There is a paucity of up-to-date systematic reviews (SRs) or meta-analyses (MAs) of device errors in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. This SR and MA provides an estimate of overall error rates (both critical and non-critical) by device type and evaluates factors associated with inhaler misuse. The following databases from inception to July 23, 2014 (Embase®, MEDLINE®, MEDLINE® In-Process and CENTRAL) were searched, using predefined search terms. Studies in adult males and females with asthma or COPD, reporting at least one overall or critical error, using metered dose inhalers and dry powder inhalers were included. Random-effect MAs were performed to estimate device error rates and to compare pairs of devices. Overall and critical error rates were high across all devices, ranging from 50-100% and 14-92%, respectively. However, between-study heterogeneity was also generally >90% (I-squared statistic), indicating large variability between studies. A trend towards higher error rates with assessments comprising a larger number of steps was observed; however no consistent pattern was identified. This SR and MA highlights the relatively limited body of evidence assessing device errors and the lack of standardised checklists. There is currently insufficient evidence to determine differences in error rates between different inhaler devices and their impact on clinical outcomes. A key step in improving our knowledge on this topic would be the development of standardised checklists for each device.CALL TO STANDARDISE RESEARCH INTO INHALER DEVICE ERRORS: Researchers should adopt a standardised approach to investigate the incorrect use of inhalers and its associated clinical implications. Henry Chrystyn at Plymouth University, together with scientists across the UK and the Netherlands, conducted a review of research related to inhaled medication errors made by patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. It is widely acknowledged that many patients with lung conditions don't use their inhaler devices correctly, which affects drug effectiveness and disease control. While Chrystyn's team found high critical error rates reported across all devices, their meta-analysis and systematic review highlighted significant gaps in knowledge regarding different inhalers and associated error rates, and how these affect clinical outcomes. The researchers call for in-depth studies into device use, alongside standardised checklists and definitions for such studies to use to ensure consistency.

Project description:Objective To synthesize and appraise economic evaluations of vision screening to detect vision impairment in children. Methods Literature searches were conducted on seven electronic databases, grey literature, and websites of agencies conducting health technology assessments. Studies were included if they (1) were full, comparative economic evaluations that used cost-utility, cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, cost-consequence, or cost-analysis methods; (2) described screening services designed to detect amblyopia, strabismus, or uncorrected refractive errors in children under 6 years of age; and (3) published after 1994. High-quality studies were synthesized descriptively. Currencies were reported in 2019 Canadian dollars. Quality was assessed with the Pediatric Quality Appraisal Questionnaire (PQAQ). Results Vision screening services were conducted by paid staff, volunteers, or health care professionals in schools or clinics. Thirteen studies were published from five countries: China (n = 1), United States (n = 4), United Kingdom (n = 1), Canada (n = 1), and Germany (n = 6). Analytical techniques included cost-utility/cost-effectiveness combination (n = 2), cost-effectiveness analysis (n = 7), cost-utility analysis (n = 1), cost-benefit analysis (n = 1), cost-consequence analysis (n = 1), and cost analysis (n = 1). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from C$1,056 to C$151,274 per additional case detected/prevented and from C$9,429 to C$30,254,703 per additional QALY gained, depending on the type of screening service and comparator. Six studies were determined to be of high quality. Conclusion Vision screening to detect amblyopia for young children may be cost-effective compared with no screening if amblyopia reduced quality of life. Studies varied significantly in the type of screening services and comparators used. Methodological limitations were common. Future studies would be aided immensely by prospective studies on the impact of amblyopia on the health-related quality of life of young children and guidelines on the effective conduct of vision screening. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.17269/s41997-021-00572-x.

Dataset Information

Refractive Errors and Concomitant Strabismus: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Publications

Refractive Errors and Concomitant Strabismus: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets