2016/8/15 0:00:00 Bo Gong, Chao Qu, Xiao-Fang Huang, Zi-Meng Ye, Ding-Ding Zhang, Yi Shi, Rong Chen, Yu-Ping Liu and Ping Shuai 89true 2016/7/12 0:00:00 Gang Qiao, Hai-Ke Guo, Yan Dai, Xiao-Li Wang, Qian-Li Meng, Hui Li, Xiang-Hui Chen and Zhong-Lun Chen 88true 2016/7/12 0:00:00 Yao Tong, Ke-Ke Zhao, Dong Feng, Manas Biswal, Pei-Quan Zhao, Zhao-Yang Wang and Yun Zhang 87true 2016/7/12 0:00:00 Ye-Lei Tang, Ya-Lan Cheng, Yu-Ping Ren, Xiao-Ning Yu and Xing-Chao Shentu 86true 2016/6/16 0:00:00 Pia Leon, Ingrid Umari, Alessandro Mangogna, Andrea Zanei and Daniele Tognetto 85true 2016/6/16 0:00:00 Zhen-Na Chen, Yan Shao and Xiao-Rong Li 84true 2016/5/23 0:00:00 Ai-Wei Liu,Lin-Yang Gan,Xiang Yao and Jian Zhou 83true 2016/5/23 0:00:00 Jing Ma,Nan-Jue Cao and Li-Kun Xia 82true 2016/4/15 0:00:00 Hong-Wei Zhou and Fang Zhou 81true 2016/4/15 0:00:00 Fang Wang and Zhi-Hong Wu 80true 2016/4/15 0:00:00 Guang-Ming Jin,Xiao-Jing Zhao,Ai-Ming Chen,Yong-Xing Chen and Qin Li 79true 2016/3/11 0:00:00 Dao-Wei Qian,Hai-Ke Guo,Shang-Li Jin,Hong-Yang Zhang and Yuan-Cun Li 78true C and 3 articles focus on rs2285714C>T). For rs10033900T>C, the results of our study revealed that having a mutant allele C, TC, CC and TC+CC was associated with a decreased risk of AMD in all population groups studied (C versus T models, OR=0.84, 95%CI: 0.72-0.99, P=0.04; TC versus TT models OR=0.89, 95%CI: 0.88-0.99, P=0.04; CC versus TT models, OR=0.76, 95%CI: 0.60-0.98, P=0.03; TC+CC versus TT models, OR=0.81, 95%CI:0.65-0.99, P=0.04). We found that C allele were related to lower AMD risk in the Caucasian population by subgroup analysis, but there was no association with AMD under the allele and genotypes comparison in Asian studies. For rs2285714 C>T, the TC, TT genotypes contributed to a higher risk of AMD, compared with the CC carriers and TC+CC (OR=1.34, 95%CI: 1.09-1.63, P=0.004; OR=1.50, 95%CI: 1.25-1.80, P<0.0001). CONCLUSION: This Meta-analysis suggests that CFI rs10033900T>C and rs2285714C>T polymorphisms may contribute to AMD.]]> 2016/2/4 0:00:00 Qin Wang,Hai-Sheng Zhao and Li Li 77true 2015/12/29 0:00:00 Ling Wang,Fang Sha,Da-Dong Guo,Hong-Sheng Bi,Jun-Kang Si,Yu-Xiang Du and Kai Tang 76true 2015/12/29 0:00:00 Xiang-Dong Liu,Xiao-Dong Zhou,Zhi Wang and Yong-Ming Shen 75true 2015/12/29 0:00:00 Cansu Yuksel-Elgin and Ceyhun Elgin 74true 2016/12/7 0:00:00 Zhong- Jing Lin, Shuo Xu, Shou-Yue Huang, Xiao-Bin Zhang and Yi-Sheng Zhong 73true 2016/11/9 0:00:00 Jia-Song Wang, Hua-Tao Xie, Ye Jia and Ming-Chang Zhang 72true 2016/10/13 0:00:00 Li Xu, Wei Zhang, Xiao-Yu Zhu, Tao Suo, Xian-Qun Fan and Yao Fu 71true 2016/10/13 0:00:00 Yong-Sheng You, Nai-Bin Qu and Xiao-Ning Yu 70true 0.05). CONCLUSION: From pairwise comparison, we conclude that these three different genotypes of LHON are related to patients’ visual prognosis. The T14484C patients might have a best prognostic vision, G3460A second, and G11778A worst. And there is little relation between the three different genotypes and patients’ vision, age of onset and sex ratio.]]> 2016/10/13 0:00:00 Dong-Yu Guo, Xia-Wei Wang, Nan Hong and Yang-Shun Gu 69true 2017/9/5 0:00:00 Yang Liu, Yi Liu, Ying-Nan Zhang, Ai-Peng Li, Jing Zhang, Qing-Feng Liang, Ying Jie and Zhi-Qiang Pan 68true 2017/9/5 0:00:00 Ying-Xi Zhao and Xiang-Wu Chen 67true 2017/9/5 0:00:00 Huan Yan, Li-Yan Gong, Wei Huang and Yan-Li Peng 66true 2017/8/9 0:00:00 Saman Maroufizadeh, Amir Almasi-Hashiani, Reza Omani Samani and Mahdi Sepidarkish 65true 2017/8/9 0:00:00 Long-Hui Han1, Li-Fei Yuan1, Xu Liang2, Xin Jia1 and Ming-Lian Zhang1 64true 2017/7/11 0:00:00 Jian Liu, Jie-Hui Xu, Wen Xu, Guan-Lu Liang, Ji-Xian Lou, Yi Wang, Ji-Quan Wen and Yong-Bao Cao 63true 2017/7/11 0:00:00 Tian-Wei Qian, Meng-Ya Zhao, Xin-Xin Li and Xun Xu 62true 2017/5/11 0:00:00 Saman Maroufizadeh,Amir Almasi-Hashiani,Mostafa Hosseini,Mahdi Sepidarkish and Reza Omani Samani 61true 2017/4/14 0:00:00 Wen-Ting Cai,Qing-Yu Liu,Cheng-Da Ren,Qing-Quan Wei,Jun-Ling Liu,Qian-Yi Wang,Ya-Ru Du,Meng-Mei He and Jing Yu 60true 2017/4/14 0:00:00 Lei Huang,Jun Lyu,Qiu-Ping Liu,Cheng Chen and Tong Wang 59true 2017/1/4 0:00:00 Hui-Qun Wu, Huan Wu, Li-Li Shi, Li-Yuan Yu, Li-Yuan Wang, Ya-Lan Chen, Jin-Song Geng, Jian Shi, Kui Jiang and Jian-Cheng Dong 58true 2017/1/4 0:00:00 Jia-Song Wang, Hua-Tao Xie, Ye Jia and Ming-Chang Zhang 57true 2017/11/7 0:00:00 Ling Zheng, Xiao-Hang Wu and Hao-Tian Lin 56true 2017/11/7 0:00:00 Min Sun, Zhi-Qiang Zhang, Chi-Yuan Ma, Sui-Hua Chen and Xin-Jian Chen 55true 2017/9/30 0:00:00 Chao Wang, Ai-Ling Li, Yu Pang, Ying-Qing Lei and Ling Yu 54true 2018/6/12 0:00:00 Chu Luan Nguyen, Andrew Lindsay, Eugene Wong and Michael Chilov 53true 2018/3/13 0:00:00 Juan-Juan Yang, Qiu-Ping Liu, Jing-Ming Li and Li Qin 52true 2018/2/6 0:00:00 Nan Jiang, Gui-Qiu Zhao, Jing Lin, Li-Ting Hu, Cheng-Ye Che, Qian Wang, Qiang Xu, Cui Li and Jie Zhang 51true 2018/2/6 0:00:00 Rui Shi, Lei Zhao, Feng Wang, Fen Liu, Zhuo Chen, Rong Li, Yang Liu and Rong Lin 50true 2018/2/6 0:00:00 Zhi-Qiao Liang, Lyu-Zhen Huang, Jin-Feng Qu and Ming-Wei Zhao 49true 2y). There is no significant difference was found in overcorrection rate, regardless of the length of follow-up time [OR 0.85 (0.41, 1.75)]. In the treatment for small-angle IX(T), the final outcome was significantly different between the groups, demonstrating a more successful alignment [OR 0.37 (0.18, 0.74)] and a lower undercorrection [OR 3.50 (1.28, 7.26)] in the R&R group than in the ULR group. While for moderate-angle IX(T) (20 PD-25 PD), the effectiveness of R&R and ULR is quite equivalent with similar success rate [OR 1.08 (0.65, 1.79)] and undercorrection rate [OR 0.89 (0.54, 1.48)]. CONCLUSION: As regard to the effect of BLR and R&R, R&R shows an advantage over BLR at short term. But, BLR is more effective in the long term for the basic type IX(T) in children. R&R surgery should be a better choice for the treatment of small-angle IX(T) of ≤20 PD than ULR. However, both of ULR and R&R are recommended for moderate-angle IX(T) from 20 PD to 25 PD.]]> 2018/12/5 0:00:00 De-Sheng Song, Zhi-Jun Chen and Jing Qian 48true 2018/11/7 0:00:00 Xin-Ying Hu, Huan Liu, Li-Na Wang, Yu-Zhi Ding and Jie Luan 47true 2019/8/2 0:00:00 Wei-Shai Liu and Yan-Jie Li 46true 2019/7/9 0:00:00 Ying Zhao, Kai Feng, Rui-Bao Liu, Jin-Hua Pan, Lai-Lin Zhang, Zhu-Ping Xu and Xue-Jing Lu 45true 2019/6/11 0:00:00 Li-Quan Zhao, Dan-Yang Yu and Jin-Wei Cheng 44true 2019/6/11 0:00:00 Jia-Ying Zhang, Xiao-Wei Zhu, Xia Ding, Ming Lin and Jin Li 43true [THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN RETRACTED] AIM: To evaluate the relative efficacy and safety of besifloxacin for treatment of acute bacterial conjunctivitis. METHODS: A comprehensive search in PubMed, EMBASE Web of Science, Cochrane Central Database and CNKI was undertaken for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing besifloxacin with other treatments or placebo. The primary outcome measures were clinical resolution, rates of bacterial eradication, individual clinical outcomes, cure rates, and bacterial eradication rates of different kinds of pathogens. Safety outcomes were the number of adverse effects (AEs). The final search was performed on August 2018. RESULTS: Eight RCTs were included. Five studies compared the efficacy and safety of besifloxacin with placebo, 2 studies compared besifloxacin with moxifloxacin, and 1 study compared besifloxacin with gatifloxacin. A total of 3105 patients met the inclusion criteria. Besifloxacin presented higher efficacy and safety than did placebo in clinical resolution, rates of bacterial eradication, individual clinical outcomes, cure rates, bacterial eradication rates of different kinds of pathogens and the number of AEs. There was no significant difference between besifloxacin and moxifloxacin or gatifloxacin in the comparison items mentioned above. CONCLUSION: Besifloxacin is highly effective and safe for treatment of acute bacterial conjunctivitis. Further comparative trials regarding the effect of besifloxacin for treatment of acute bacterial conjunctivitis will aid in treatment decisions.]]> 2019/5/6 0:00:00 Jun-Jie Wang, Xin-Yi Gao, Hong-Zhuo Li and Shan-Shuang Du 42true 2019/3/27 0:00:00 Nuo Wang and Song-Bai Jia 41true 2019/2/11 0:00:00 Yi-Xin Wang, Jian-Xin Tao and Yong Yao 40true 2019/1/3 0:00:00 Qian-Hui Yang, Yan Zhang, Xiao-Min Zhang and Xiao-Rong Li 39true 2019/1/3 0:00:00 Wen-Juan Luo and Wen-Fang Zhang 38true 2019/1/3 0:00:00 Zhen-Zhen Guo, Karen Chang and Xin Wei 37true 2019/1/3 0:00:00 Wen-Jun Chen, Li Ma, Ming-Shu Li and Xiang Ma 36true 2019/11/6 0:00:00 Jun-Jie Wang, Xin-Yi Gao, Hong-Zhuo Li and Shan-Shuang Du 35true 2019/11/6 0:00:00 Hui-Qun Wu, Yan-Xing Shan, Huan Wu, Di-Ru Zhu, Hui-Min Tao, Hua-Gen Wei, Xiao-Yan Shen, Ai-Min Sang and Jian-Cheng Dong 34true 2019/11/6 0:00:00 Shan-Shan Li, Ran You, Min Li, Xiao-Xiao Guo, Lu Zhao, Yan-Ling Wang and Xi Chen 33true 2020/7/21 0:00:00 Wei Tan, Jing-Ling Zou, Shigeo Yoshida, Bing Jiang and Ye-Di Zhou 32true 2020/3/30 0:00:00 Shi-Dan Wang, Guo-Ming Zhang and Shenzhen Screening for Retinopathy of Prematurity Cooperative Group 31true 2020/3/3 0:00:00 Hong Jiang, Li-Na Wang, Yan Liu, Ming Li, Min Wu, Yue Yin, Le Ma and Chang-Rui Wu 30true 2020/3/3 0:00:00 Chao-Ran Li, Lang Chen, Long-Fei Wang, Bin Yan, You-Ling Liang and Jing Luo 29true 2020/2/4 0:00:00 Xi-Ting Yang, Lin Zhao, Li-Jun Wang, Yi Zhang, Ding-Ying Liao and Jian-Ming Wang 28true 2020/2/4 0:00:00 Xia-Wei Wang, Yan Long, Yang-Shun Gu and Dong-Yu Guo 27true 2020/2/3 0:00:00 Chun-Yan Guo, Xiao-Hui Qi and Jian-Ming Qi 26true 2019/12/27 0:00:00 Ya-Jun Wu, Jie Rao, Kang-Rui Wu, Na Wu, Yi Cheng, Xiao-Xuan Xu, Li Yan, Yi Shao, Yu Tian and Xiao-Rong Wu 25true 2019/12/27 0:00:00 Patrick Murtagh, Garrett Greene and Colm O'Brien 24true 2021/8/23 0:00:00 Nan Yang, Yun-Fei Lu, Xiao Yang, Kui Jiang, Ai-Min Sang and Hui-Qun Wu 23true 2021/5/25 0:00:00 Li Chen, Chen Hu, Xiao Lin, Hao-Yu Li, Yi Du, Yi-Hua Yao and Jun Chen 22true 2021/5/25 0:00:00 Bo-Hao Cui, Wei Zhou, Wen-Wen Wang, Hao Yang, Ya-Lan Dong, Yuan-Yuan Liu and Hua Yan 21true 2021/4/23 0:00:00 Yu-Mei Yang, Yu-Ping Liu, Dong-Yu Li, Man Yu, Bo Gong, Lin Wang and Ping Shuai 20true 2021/2/25 0:00:00 Yi Dong, Li Nan and Yu-Yan Liu 19true 2020/11/19 0:00:00 Hui-Qun Wu, Xiao Wei, Jin-Yi Yao, Jian-Yan Qi, Hui-Min Xie, Ai-Min Sang and Kui Jiang 18true 2021/11/25 0:00:00 Jun-Yan Xiao, An-Yi Liang, Yue-Lin Wang, Gang-Wei Cheng and Mei-Fen Zhang 17true 2021/9/23 0:00:00 Peng-Cheng Hu, Li Li, Xian-Hui Wu, Yan-Qing Li and Ke-Wei Li 16true 2022/9/1 14:00:54 Xuan-Yu Qiu, Xiao-Fei Hu, Ya-Zhou Qin, Ji-Xian Ma, Qiu-Ping Liu, Li Qin and Jing-Ming Li 15true 2022/7/28 11:22:41 Yu-Xin Tong, Xin-Yu Zhang, Yi He, Zong-Lin Chen and Bing Jiang 14true 2022/7/28 11:22:41 Bei Cui, Hong-Zhen Jia, Li-Xiong Gao and Xiao-Fei Dong 13true 2022/5/31 14:47:17 Qiong Wu, Yan Li, Lian Wu and Cong-Yi Wang 12true 2022/4/27 14:07:17 Somayeh Abolhasani, Alireza Khabbazi, Foroogh Hosseini, Shiva Gholizadeh-Ghaleh Aziz and Shahriar Alipour 11true 2022/1/26 9:59:40 Si-Lu Shi, Xiao-Ning Yu, Yi-Lei Cui, Si-Fan Zheng and Xing-Chao Shentu 10true 2021/12/24 0:00:00 Yi-Fan Du, Han-Ruo Liu, Yue Zhang, Wei-Ling Bai, Ru-Yue Li, Run-Zhou Sun and Ning-Li Wang 9true 2022/9/21 16:28:50 Ji-Xian Ma, Si-Wen Tian and Qiu-Ping Liu 8true 2023/7/25 10:38:17 Tian-Hong Wu, Xue Yin, Jian-Qing Li and Pei-Rong Lu 7true 2023/7/25 10:38:18 Xin-Li Wei, Tong Wu, Kuan-Rong Dang, Ke-Ke Hu, Xin-Ting Lu, Min Gong, Yu-Ru Du, Yan-Nian Hui, Xue-Min Tian and Hong-Jun Du 6true 2023/6/27 16:00:24 Qiu Xing, Ya-Nan Dai, Xiao-Bo Huang and Li Peng 5true 2023/3/30 16:20:49 Hai-Jian Hu, Yi-Li Chang, Yang-Yang Dai, Yu-Lin Yu and Xu Zhang 4true 2023/3/2 15:56:09 Hong-Yu Li, Zi Ye and Zhao-Hui Li 3true 2023/3/2 15:56:09 Qing-Yu Meng, Ze-Qun Miao, Shu-Ting Liang, Xi Wu, Le-Jin Wang, Ming-Wei Zhao and Li-Li Guo 2true 2023/2/2 15:59:18 Xin-Yan Dou and Wei Zhang 1true