Meta-Analysis of Dyslipidemia and Blood Lipid Parameters on the Risk of Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma

Table 3

Evaluation scores of included studies using the Viswanathan M design scale.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	总分
Jung et al. [11]	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	10
Rim et al. [12]	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	10
Lee et al. [13]	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	10
Chen et al. [14]	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	0	1	0	1	1	1	11
Kim et al. [15]	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	10
Chung et al. [16]	1	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	1	6
Newman-Casey et al. [17]	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	10
Lin et al. [18]	1	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	1	6
Motsko and Jones. [20]	1	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	7
Girkin et al. [21]	1	1	1	0	1	1	0	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	9
Kim et al. [5]	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	10
Lei et al. [22]	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	10
Shon and Sung [23]	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	10
Wu et al. [24]	1	1	0	1	1	1	0	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	9
Tang et al. [25]	1	1	0	1	1	1	0	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	9

Note: Quality criteria and evaluation of design and data analysis for observational studies criteria (1) Was the research question or objective in this paper clearly stated? (2) Was the study population clearly specified and defined? (3) Was the study population representative of the general population? (4) Was the participation rate of eligible persons at least 50%? (5) Were all the subjects selected or recruited from the same or similar populations (including the same time period)? Were inclusion and exclusion criteria for being in the study prespecified and applied uniformly to all participants? (6) Were sample size justification, power description, or variance and effect estimates provided? (7) For the analyses in this paper, were the exposures of interest measured prior to the outcomes being measured? (8) Was the time frame sufficient so that one could reasonably expect to see an association between exposure and outcome if it existed? (9) Were the exposure measures (independent variables) clearly defined, objective, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants? (10) Were the exposures assessed more than once over time? (11) Were the outcome measures (dependent variables) clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants? (12) Were the outcome assessors blinded to the exposure status of participants? (13) Was the statistical analysis appropriate? (14) Was loss to follow-up after baseline 20% or less? (15) Were the key potential confounding variables measured and adjusted statistically for their impact on the relationship between exposures and outcomes? (1: yes; 0: no or not applicable).