<HashMap><database>biostudies-literature</database><scores/><additional><omics_type>Unknown</omics_type><volume>6</volume><submitter>Wang SZ</submitter><pubmed_abstract>We conducted a meta-analysis of analytic and observational studies to evaluate the association between smoking and epiretinal membrane (ERM). The pertinent studies were identified via a literature search using three databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase) and the reference lists of retrieved studies. Cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies meeting the predefined criteria were included. We extracted the odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) from each study. Overall risk estimates were pooled using random-effects models. Subgroup analyses based on several stratified factors were also performed. Two cohort studies and six cross-sectional studies involving 46,837 subjects were included. The pooled effect of all eight studies showed an unexpected significant decrease</pubmed_abstract><journal>Scientific reports</journal><pagination>38038</pagination><full_dataset_link>https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC5126679</full_dataset_link><repository>biostudies-literature</repository><pubmed_title>The Association between Smoking and Epiretinal Membrane.</pubmed_title><pmcid>PMC5126679</pmcid><pubmed_authors>Tong QH</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Wang SZ</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Lu QK</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Xu YF</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Wang HY</pubmed_authors></additional><is_claimable>false</is_claimable><name>The Association between Smoking and Epiretinal Membrane.</name><description>We conducted a meta-analysis of analytic and observational studies to evaluate the association between smoking and epiretinal membrane (ERM). The pertinent studies were identified via a literature search using three databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase) and the reference lists of retrieved studies. Cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies meeting the predefined criteria were included. We extracted the odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) from each study. Overall risk estimates were pooled using random-effects models. Subgroup analyses based on several stratified factors were also performed. Two cohort studies and six cross-sectional studies involving 46,837 subjects were included. The pooled effect of all eight studies showed an unexpected significant decrease</description><dates><release>2016-01-01T00:00:00Z</release><publication>2016 Nov</publication><modification>2025-06-01T12:15:37.653Z</modification><creation>2019-03-27T02:30:03Z</creation></dates><accession>S-EPMC5126679</accession><cross_references><pubmed>27897264</pubmed><doi>10.1038/srep38038</doi></cross_references></HashMap>