Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2023 Feb;37(2):220-227.
doi: 10.1038/s41433-022-02033-2. Epub 2022 May 2.

The cross-sectional and longitudinal relationship of diabetic retinopathy to cognitive impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Robert N F Chan  1 , Ziqi Tang  1 , Victor T T Chan  1   2 , Raymond N C Chan  1 , Esther T W Cheng  1 , Natalie C Y Ng  1 , Carol Y Cheung  3
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

The cross-sectional and longitudinal relationship of diabetic retinopathy to cognitive impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Robert N F Chan et al. Eye (Lond). 2023 Feb.

Abstract
in English, Chinese

Objectives: To establish a potential relationship between diabetic retinopathy (DR) and different stages of cognitive impairment METHODS: Literature searches were conducted on PubMed and EMBASE, with keywords "diabetic retinopathy" and "cognitive impairment". Inclusion criteria were original human studies, and English language. Quality of studies was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment (NOSGEN). The register number of this study on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) is CRD42021236747. The main outcome measures were odds ratios (OR) and risk ratios (RR) for cross-sectional and longitudinal studies, respectively. Meta-regression was performed to evaluate the effects of potential moderator variables, including, age, onset age of diabetes mellitus (DM), duration of DM, and HbA1c.

Results: Twenty-five studies (17 cross-sectional and 8 longitudinal studies) with a total of 1,963,914 subjects, were included. Among the cross-sectional studies, the pooled ORs of any cognitive impairment, early stage of cognitive impairment and dementia in subjects with DR (95% confidence interval) were 1.48 (1.08-2.02), 1.59 (1.01-2.51), and 1.13 (0.86-1.50), respectively. Among the longitudinal studies, the pooled RRs of any cognitive impairment, early stage of cognitive impairment, and dementia in subjects with DR (95% confidence interval) were 1.35 (1.12-1.65), 1.50 (1.06-2.12), and 1.31 (1.03-1.66), respectively. Meta-regression showed age, onset age of DM, duration of DM, and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) were not statistically associated with the outcomes.

Conclusions: The presence of DR in DM patients indicates both higher odds of prevalent cognitive impairment and escalated risks of developing cognitive impairment in the future.

摘要: 目的: 建立糖尿病视网膜病变(DR)与不同阶段认知障碍之间的潜在关联。 方法: PubMde 和 EMBASE数据库中使用“糖尿病视网膜病变”和“认知障碍”两个关键词进行文献检索。纳入标准为临床研究和英文文献, 我们通过Newcastle-Ottawa质量评估(NOSGEN)方法评估研究质量。本研究在国际前瞻性系统性综述登记研究(PROSPERO)中的登记研究编号为CRD42021236747。比值比 (OR) 和风险比 (RR) 分别是横断面研究和纵向研究的主要结局指标。荟萃-回归分析用以评估潜在调节变量带来的影响, 包括年龄、糖尿病(DM)发病年龄、DM病程和HbA1c。 结果: 共纳入25项研究 (17项横断面研究和8项纵向研究), 一共1, 963, 914例受试对象。在横断面研究中, DR受试者中任何认知障碍、早期认知障碍及痴呆的合并OR (95%置信区间) 分别为1.48(1.08–2.02)、1.59(1.01–2.51)和1.13(0.86–1.50)。在纵向研究中, DR受试者中任何认知障碍、早期认知障碍及痴呆的合并RR (95%置信区间) 分别为 1.35 (1.12–1.65), 1.50 (1.06–2.12) and 1.31 (1.03–1.66)。荟萃-回归分析显示, 年龄, DM发病年龄, DM病程和糖化血红蛋白 (HbA1c) 与认知障碍结局无统计学相关性。 结论: 并发DR的DM患者发生认知障碍的几率高, 且将来发生认知障碍的风险也高。.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow diagram of selection of studies for inclusion in the meta-analysis.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2. Meta-analysis for cross-sectional association between DR and any cognitive impairment.
The meta-analysis was performed by a random effects model. The size of the box is related to the weight that given to that particular study. The horizontal lines correspond to the 95% confidential intervals. The peaks of diamonds represent the overall effect estimate and the edges of that represent the 95% confidential intervals.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3. Meta-analysis for longitudinal association of DR and any cognitive impairment.
The meta-analysis was performed by a random effects model. The size of the box is related to the weight that given to that particular study. The horizontal lines correspond to the 95% confidential intervals. The peaks of diamonds represent the overall effect estimate and the edges of that represent the 95% confidential intervals.
Fig. 4
Fig. 4. Meta-analysis for cross-sectional association of DR and early stage of cognitive impairment.
The meta-analysis was performed by a random effects model. The size of the box is related to the weight that given to that particular study. The horizontal lines correspond to the 95% confidential intervals. The peaks of diamonds represent the overall effect estimate and the edges of that represent the 95% confidential intervals.
Fig. 5
Fig. 5. Meta-analysis for longitudinal association of DR and early stage of cognitive impairment.
The meta-analysis was performed by a random effects model. The size of the box is related to the weight that given to that particular study. The horizontal lines correspond to the 95% confidential intervals. The peaks of diamonds represent the overall effect estimate and the edges of that represent the 95% confidential intervals.
Fig. 6
Fig. 6. Meta-analysis for cross-sectional association of DR and dementia.
The meta-analysis was performed by a random effects model. The size of the box is related to the weight that given to that particular study. The horizontal lines correspond to the 95% confidential intervals. The peaks of diamonds represent the overall effect estimate and the edges of that represent the 95% confidential intervals.
Fig. 7
Fig. 7. Meta-analysis for longitudinal association of DR and dementia.
The meta-analysis was performed by a random effects model. The size of the box is related to the weight that given to that particular study. The horizontal lines correspond to the 95% confidential intervals. The peaks of diamonds represent the overall effect estimate and the edges of that represent the 95% confidential intervals.
Fig. 8
Fig. 8. Meta-analysis for cross-sectional association of PDR and any cognitive impairment.
The meta-analysis was performed by a random effects model. The size of the box is related to the weight that given to that particular study. The horizontal lines correspond to the 95% confidential intervals. The peaks of diamonds represent the overall effect estimate and the edges of that represent the 95% confidential intervals.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Wong TY, Sabanayagam C. The war on diabetic retinopathy: where are we now? Asia Pac J Ophthalmol. 2019;8:448–56. doi: 10.1097/APO.0000000000000267. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Livingston G, Huntley J, Sommerlad A, Ames D, Ballard C, Banerjee S, et al. Dementia prevention, intervention, and care: 2020 report of the Lancet Commission. Lancet. 2020;396:413–46. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30367-6. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. World Health Organization. Dementia [electronic resource]: a public health priority. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2012.
    1. Livingston GO, Huntley J, Sommerlad A, Ames D, Ballard C, Banerjee S, et al. Dementia prevention, intervention, and care: 2020 report of the Lancet Commission. Lancet. 2020;396:413–46. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30367-6. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Zhang J, Chen C, Hua S, Liao H, Wang M, Xiong Y, et al. An updated meta-analysis of cohort studies: Diabetes and risk of Alzheimer’s disease. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2017;124:41–7. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2016.10.024. - DOI - PubMed

Substances