Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24253031›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2013

Geographical prevalence and risk factors for pterygium: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Lei Liu, Jingyang Wu, Jin Geng, Zhe Yuan, Desheng Huang

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 81 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
81citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

81 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Conjunctival autograft for pterygium.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. [Limbal diseases].Die Ophthalmologie · 2026
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Potential Role ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

21 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Lei LiuDepartment of Ophthalmology, The First Affiliated Hospital, China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Jingyang Wu
Jin Geng
Zhe Yuan
Desheng Huang

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivePterygium is considered to be a proliferative overgrowth of bulbar conjunctiva that can induce significant astigmatism and cause visual impairment; this is the first meta-analysis to investigate the pooled prevalence and risk factors for pterygium in the global world.

designA systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based studies.

settingInternational.

participantsA total of 20 studies with 900 545 samples were included. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: The pooled prevalence and risk factors for pterygium.

results20 studies were included. The pooled prevalence of pterygium was 10.2% (95% CI 6.3% to 16.1%). The pooled prevalence among men was higher than that among women (14.5% vs 13.6%). The proportion of participants with unilateral cases of pterygium was higher than that of participants with bilateral cases of pterygium. We found a trend that the higher pooled prevalence of pterygium was associated with decreasing geographical latitude and age in the world. The pooled OR was 2.32 (95% CI 1.66 to 3.23) for the male gender and 1.76 (95% CI 1.55 to 2.00) for outdoor activity, respectively.

conclusionsThe pooled prevalence of pterygium was relatively high, especially for low latitude regions and the elderly. There were many modifiable risk factors associated with pterygium to which healthcare providers should pay more attention.

Indexed as

EpidemiologyOphthalmology

Identifiers

PMID24253031
PMCPMC3840351

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.