Evidence Hub

Risk factors for glaucoma in nanophthalmos - a systematic review and meta-analysis

Rajendrababu S, Berendschot TTJM, Senthilkumar VA, Niranjana B, Rao M, Maghalakshmi U, Iswarya M, Kumaragurupari T et al.

BMC ophthalmology, 2025

1,078 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Background: Nanophthalmos, a rare ocular condition characterized by small but structurally normal eyes, presents a high risk for developing angle-closure glaucoma and related complications. Accurate estimation of glaucoma prevalence and identification of predictive risk factors are essential for guiding early diagnosis and tailored interventions in this anatomically vulnerable population. Therefore, the current systematic review and meta-analysis synthesizes existing evidence on the associated clinical and biometric risk factors for glaucoma in nanophthalmic eyes.

Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a comprehensive literature search in PubMed and the Cochrane Library for studies published between January 2000 and December 2023. Eligible studies included investigations reporting biometric data in nanophthalmic eyes. Data were extracted on demographics, clinical parameters, and risk factors. Meta-analyses using random-effects models were conducted to estimate pooled prevalence and assess heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression explored sources of variability. The risk of bias was assessed using NIH quality tools.

Results: A total of 44 studies involving 1,397 eyes from 1,078 patients were included. The pooled prevalence of glaucoma in nanophthalmos was estimated at 51.88% (95% CI: 33.33-70.43; I² = 88.57%). Meta-regression revealed that higher intraocular pressure (IOP) at presentation was significantly associated with increased glaucoma prevalence,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 1,078 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free