Current eye research · 2024
Sex Differences in the Prevalence of Meibomian Gland Dysfunction: A Mini Review.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Nøland Sara T, Magnø Morten S, Utheim Tor P, Chen Xiangjun
Аннотация
PURPOSE: In this review, we aimed to investigate the literature on sex-specific prevalence of meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) and to determine whether women or men are more at risk for MGD.
METHODS: A search was conducted on PubMed using the terms: (Sex OR Gender OR prevalence) AND (Meibomian gland).
RESULTS: Twenty-four relevant studies on MGD prevalence were identified, including 10 population-based and 14 hospital-based studies. Among the population-based studies, five studies reported higher rates among men, three studies found no differences, and one study observed higher rates among women. In the hospital-based studies, 10 studies reported no difference, two found higher rates among men, and one found higher among women. In the reviewed literature, there was a considerable variation between studies in terms of quality, sample size, age ranges, diagnostic criteria.
CONCLUSIONS: While most of the population-based studies suggest a higher prevalence among men, the majority of clinic-based studies show no significant difference. Further research with larger samples and standardized criteria is needed to determine whether men are indeed more susceptible to MGD.
METHODS: A search was conducted on PubMed using the terms: (Sex OR Gender OR prevalence) AND (Meibomian gland).
RESULTS: Twenty-four relevant studies on MGD prevalence were identified, including 10 population-based and 14 hospital-based studies. Among the population-based studies, five studies reported higher rates among men, three studies found no differences, and one study observed higher rates among women. In the hospital-based studies, 10 studies reported no difference, two found higher rates among men, and one found higher among women. In the reviewed literature, there was a considerable variation between studies in terms of quality, sample size, age ranges, diagnostic criteria.
CONCLUSIONS: While most of the population-based studies suggest a higher prevalence among men, the majority of clinic-based studies show no significant difference. Further research with larger samples and standardized criteria is needed to determine whether men are indeed more susceptible to MGD.