Skip to main content
. 2023 Mar 18;16(3):453–464. doi: 10.18240/ijo.2023.03.17

Table 1. Characteristics of the 11 studies included in the analysis.

Study Location Year Sample size (n)
Spherical equivalent (D)
Age (y)
Type of OCT Quality score
Myopia Non-myopia Myopia Non-myopia Myopia Non-myopia
Li[33] China 2016 65 71 -1.50±1.0 0±0.5 11.4±1.5 11.5±1.7 Cirrus-HD OCT 8b
Bulut[26] Turkey 2016 53 64 -2.1±1.0 0.0±0.3 10.9±3.4 11.7±2.7 Cirrus HD 8b
Jin[34] China 2016 86 91 -2.00±1.45 0.18±0.26 10.1±1.1 10.1±1.1 SS-OCT Topcon DRI OCT-1 9b
Lundberg[36] Denmark 2018 55 252 -1.77±1.6 0.75±0.6 15.4±0.6 15.4±0.7 Spectralis OCT 9b
Lee[37] Korea 2017 28 39 -2.83±1.17 0.08±0.50 8.4±1.7 8.1±1.8 Spectralis OCT 9b
Deng[38] China 2019 222 49 -2.96±1.67 0.05±0.24 12.37±1.80 11.45±1.53 SS-OCT Topcon DRI OCT-1 8b
Guo[39] China 2019 1020 410 -2.88±2.63 -0.25± 0.63 13.0±1.0 13.0±1.0 Spectralis OCT 9b
Read[41] Australia 2013 41 60 -2.39±1.51 +0.33±0.31 13±1.5 13.1±1.2 Spectralis OCT 9b
Jiang[42] China 2021 43 28 - - 6.51±0.51 6.43±0.50 Optovue SD-OCT 7a
Matalia[43] India 2017 40 46 - - - - Optovue SD-OCT 8b
Chang[44] China 2022 40 19 -2.21±1.26 0.35±0.46 8.55±1.63 8.18±2.44 VG200S; SVision Imaging 10b

aThe Newcastle Ottawa Scale was used for quality assessment in the included studies; bThe Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality was used for quality assessment in the included studies. OCT: Optical coherence tomography.