Cited by 46Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment StudiesRetinal Diseases and TreatmentsGlaucoma and retinal disorders

Associations of refractive errors and retinal changes measured by optical coherence tomography: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Salehi, Mohammad Amin, Nowroozi, Ali, Gouravani, Mahdi, Mohammadi, Soheil, Arevalo, J. Fernando·2022·Survey of Ophthalmology

Abstract

Studies reporting alteration in retinal thickness using optical coherence tomography (OCT) have been performed in different populations with various degrees of refractive error, producing inconsistent results. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the alterations in retinal OCT measurements in myopic and hyperopic patients compared to controls. Evaluation of different retinal layers' thickness may have significance for developing novel approaches for preventing, diagnosing, and treating refractive errors and their complications. We searched PubMed and EMBASE to identify articles that reported OCT measurements of different retinal layers and regions, including macular, foveal, parafoveal, perifoveal, foveolar, ganglion cell complex (GCC), retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL), peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (pRNFL), and ganglion cell and inner plexiform layer (GC-IPL) thickness in addition to macular volume, and optic disc area in myopes and hyperopes comparing their differences with controls. We applied either a fixed-effects or random-effects model for the meta-analysis of these differences based on the assessed heterogeneity level. Furthermore, subgroup analyses and metaregression, as well as publication bias and quality assessment, were conducted for the eligible studies. Forty-seven studies with a total of 12223 eyes, including 8600 cases and 3623 non-cases, are included in this meta-analysis. Our results showed that, in comparison to controls, highly my…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.survophthal.2021.07.007

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Salehi, M. A., Nowroozi, A., Gouravani, M., Mohammadi, S., & Arevalo, J. F.
Affiliations
Tehran University of Medical Sciences (IR)
Corresponding author
Mohammadi, Soheil
Venue
Survey of Ophthalmology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-03
Volume
67
Issue
2
Pages
591-607
ISSN
0039-6257 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3189744849
Cited by
46
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 4
FWCI
1.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Survey of Ophthalmology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Retinal Diseases and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Glaucoma and retinal disorders
Keywords
refractive error, myopia, hyperopia, retinal thickness, macular thickness, ganglion cell complex, retinal nerve fiber layer, peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer, macular volume, optic disc area, retinal biomarkers, optical coherence tomography
MeSH terms
Humans, Nerve Fibers, Optic Disk, Refractive Errors, Retinal Ganglion Cells, Tomography, Optical Coherence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review