Additional file 1 of Association between uveitis onset and economic development in mainland China

Additional file 1: Fig. S1. GDP-mediated temperature-uveitis relationship. The effect of variation in temperature on the number of uveitis cases when climate models contain an interaction-per capita GDP. The dots are point estimates of the effect of monthly temperature on monthly uveitis cases; the lines are 95% CI. Table S1. The proportion of patients with different uveitis subtypes in Mainland China by provinces, 2006-2017. Table S2. Associations of uveitis onset with GDP per capita*. Table S3. Per capita GDP-mediated 2.5–uveitis relationship

Table2_Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Advanced Intravitreal Therapeutic Agents for Noninfectious Uveitis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.DOCX

Background: To compare the efficacy and safety of advanced intravitreal therapeutic regimens, including a dexamethasone implant at 350 and 700 μg; a fluocinolone acetonide (FA) implant, 0.2 µg/day, 0.59 and 2.1 mg; intravitreal bevacizumab, 1.25 mg; intravitreal ranibizumab, 0.5 mg; intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (IVTA), 2 and 4 mg; and standard of care (SOC, systemic therapy) for noninfectious uveitis.Methods: We searched the Cochrane Library database, EMBASE, Medline, clinicaltrials.gov until April 2021 with 13 RCTs (1806 participants) identified and conducted a pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analysis with random effects.Results: No specific regimen showed a statistically significant advantage or disadvantage to another treatment regimen with regard to efficacy. However, the FA implant, 0.59 mg was associated with a higher risk of cataract (RR 4.41, 95% CI 1.51–13.13) and raise in intraocular pressure (IOP) (RR 2.53 95% CI 1.14–6.25) compared with SOC at 24 months. IVTA, 4 mg at 6 months was associated with lower risk of IOP rising compared with FA implant, 0.2 µg/day at 36 months (RR 3.43 95% CI 1.12–11.35).Conclusion: No intravitreal therapeutic regimens showed a significant advantage or disadvantage with regard to efficacy. However, SOC was associated with lower risk of side effects compared with FA implants. IVTA, 4 mg, might be the best choice with lowest risk of IOP rising.Systematic Review Registration:clinicaltrials.gov, identifier CRD42020172953</p

Table5_Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Advanced Intravitreal Therapeutic Agents for Noninfectious Uveitis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.docx

Background: To compare the efficacy and safety of advanced intravitreal therapeutic regimens, including a dexamethasone implant at 350 and 700 μg; a fluocinolone acetonide (FA) implant, 0.2 µg/day, 0.59 and 2.1 mg; intravitreal bevacizumab, 1.25 mg; intravitreal ranibizumab, 0.5 mg; intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (IVTA), 2 and 4 mg; and standard of care (SOC, systemic therapy) for noninfectious uveitis.Methods: We searched the Cochrane Library database, EMBASE, Medline, clinicaltrials.gov until April 2021 with 13 RCTs (1806 participants) identified and conducted a pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analysis with random effects.Results: No specific regimen showed a statistically significant advantage or disadvantage to another treatment regimen with regard to efficacy. However, the FA implant, 0.59 mg was associated with a higher risk of cataract (RR 4.41, 95% CI 1.51–13.13) and raise in intraocular pressure (IOP) (RR 2.53 95% CI 1.14–6.25) compared with SOC at 24 months. IVTA, 4 mg at 6 months was associated with lower risk of IOP rising compared with FA implant, 0.2 µg/day at 36 months (RR 3.43 95% CI 1.12–11.35).Conclusion: No intravitreal therapeutic regimens showed a significant advantage or disadvantage with regard to efficacy. However, SOC was associated with lower risk of side effects compared with FA implants. IVTA, 4 mg, might be the best choice with lowest risk of IOP rising.Systematic Review Registration:clinicaltrials.gov, identifier CRD42020172953</p

Image3_Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Advanced Intravitreal Therapeutic Agents for Noninfectious Uveitis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.TIF

Background: To compare the efficacy and safety of advanced intravitreal therapeutic regimens, including a dexamethasone implant at 350 and 700 μg; a fluocinolone acetonide (FA) implant, 0.2 µg/day, 0.59 and 2.1 mg; intravitreal bevacizumab, 1.25 mg; intravitreal ranibizumab, 0.5 mg; intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (IVTA), 2 and 4 mg; and standard of care (SOC, systemic therapy) for noninfectious uveitis.Methods: We searched the Cochrane Library database, EMBASE, Medline, clinicaltrials.gov until April 2021 with 13 RCTs (1806 participants) identified and conducted a pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analysis with random effects.Results: No specific regimen showed a statistically significant advantage or disadvantage to another treatment regimen with regard to efficacy. However, the FA implant, 0.59 mg was associated with a higher risk of cataract (RR 4.41, 95% CI 1.51–13.13) and raise in intraocular pressure (IOP) (RR 2.53 95% CI 1.14–6.25) compared with SOC at 24 months. IVTA, 4 mg at 6 months was associated with lower risk of IOP rising compared with FA implant, 0.2 µg/day at 36 months (RR 3.43 95% CI 1.12–11.35).Conclusion: No intravitreal therapeutic regimens showed a significant advantage or disadvantage with regard to efficacy. However, SOC was associated with lower risk of side effects compared with FA implants. IVTA, 4 mg, might be the best choice with lowest risk of IOP rising.Systematic Review Registration:clinicaltrials.gov, identifier CRD42020172953</p

Table3_Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Advanced Intravitreal Therapeutic Agents for Noninfectious Uveitis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.DOCX

Background: To compare the efficacy and safety of advanced intravitreal therapeutic regimens, including a dexamethasone implant at 350 and 700 μg; a fluocinolone acetonide (FA) implant, 0.2 µg/day, 0.59 and 2.1 mg; intravitreal bevacizumab, 1.25 mg; intravitreal ranibizumab, 0.5 mg; intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (IVTA), 2 and 4 mg; and standard of care (SOC, systemic therapy) for noninfectious uveitis.Methods: We searched the Cochrane Library database, EMBASE, Medline, clinicaltrials.gov until April 2021 with 13 RCTs (1806 participants) identified and conducted a pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analysis with random effects.Results: No specific regimen showed a statistically significant advantage or disadvantage to another treatment regimen with regard to efficacy. However, the FA implant, 0.59 mg was associated with a higher risk of cataract (RR 4.41, 95% CI 1.51–13.13) and raise in intraocular pressure (IOP) (RR 2.53 95% CI 1.14–6.25) compared with SOC at 24 months. IVTA, 4 mg at 6 months was associated with lower risk of IOP rising compared with FA implant, 0.2 µg/day at 36 months (RR 3.43 95% CI 1.12–11.35).Conclusion: No intravitreal therapeutic regimens showed a significant advantage or disadvantage with regard to efficacy. However, SOC was associated with lower risk of side effects compared with FA implants. IVTA, 4 mg, might be the best choice with lowest risk of IOP rising.Systematic Review Registration:clinicaltrials.gov, identifier CRD42020172953</p

Image1_Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Advanced Intravitreal Therapeutic Agents for Noninfectious Uveitis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.PDF

Background: To compare the efficacy and safety of advanced intravitreal therapeutic regimens, including a dexamethasone implant at 350 and 700 μg; a fluocinolone acetonide (FA) implant, 0.2 µg/day, 0.59 and 2.1 mg; intravitreal bevacizumab, 1.25 mg; intravitreal ranibizumab, 0.5 mg; intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (IVTA), 2 and 4 mg; and standard of care (SOC, systemic therapy) for noninfectious uveitis.Methods: We searched the Cochrane Library database, EMBASE, Medline, clinicaltrials.gov until April 2021 with 13 RCTs (1806 participants) identified and conducted a pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analysis with random effects.Results: No specific regimen showed a statistically significant advantage or disadvantage to another treatment regimen with regard to efficacy. However, the FA implant, 0.59 mg was associated with a higher risk of cataract (RR 4.41, 95% CI 1.51–13.13) and raise in intraocular pressure (IOP) (RR 2.53 95% CI 1.14–6.25) compared with SOC at 24 months. IVTA, 4 mg at 6 months was associated with lower risk of IOP rising compared with FA implant, 0.2 µg/day at 36 months (RR 3.43 95% CI 1.12–11.35).Conclusion: No intravitreal therapeutic regimens showed a significant advantage or disadvantage with regard to efficacy. However, SOC was associated with lower risk of side effects compared with FA implants. IVTA, 4 mg, might be the best choice with lowest risk of IOP rising.Systematic Review Registration:clinicaltrials.gov, identifier CRD42020172953</p

Image2_Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Advanced Intravitreal Therapeutic Agents for Noninfectious Uveitis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.PDF

Background: To compare the efficacy and safety of advanced intravitreal therapeutic regimens, including a dexamethasone implant at 350 and 700 μg; a fluocinolone acetonide (FA) implant, 0.2 µg/day, 0.59 and 2.1 mg; intravitreal bevacizumab, 1.25 mg; intravitreal ranibizumab, 0.5 mg; intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (IVTA), 2 and 4 mg; and standard of care (SOC, systemic therapy) for noninfectious uveitis.Methods: We searched the Cochrane Library database, EMBASE, Medline, clinicaltrials.gov until April 2021 with 13 RCTs (1806 participants) identified and conducted a pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analysis with random effects.Results: No specific regimen showed a statistically significant advantage or disadvantage to another treatment regimen with regard to efficacy. However, the FA implant, 0.59 mg was associated with a higher risk of cataract (RR 4.41, 95% CI 1.51–13.13) and raise in intraocular pressure (IOP) (RR 2.53 95% CI 1.14–6.25) compared with SOC at 24 months. IVTA, 4 mg at 6 months was associated with lower risk of IOP rising compared with FA implant, 0.2 µg/day at 36 months (RR 3.43 95% CI 1.12–11.35).Conclusion: No intravitreal therapeutic regimens showed a significant advantage or disadvantage with regard to efficacy. However, SOC was associated with lower risk of side effects compared with FA implants. IVTA, 4 mg, might be the best choice with lowest risk of IOP rising.Systematic Review Registration:clinicaltrials.gov, identifier CRD42020172953</p

Image4_Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Advanced Intravitreal Therapeutic Agents for Noninfectious Uveitis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.TIF

Background: To compare the efficacy and safety of advanced intravitreal therapeutic regimens, including a dexamethasone implant at 350 and 700 μg; a fluocinolone acetonide (FA) implant, 0.2 µg/day, 0.59 and 2.1 mg; intravitreal bevacizumab, 1.25 mg; intravitreal ranibizumab, 0.5 mg; intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (IVTA), 2 and 4 mg; and standard of care (SOC, systemic therapy) for noninfectious uveitis.Methods: We searched the Cochrane Library database, EMBASE, Medline, clinicaltrials.gov until April 2021 with 13 RCTs (1806 participants) identified and conducted a pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analysis with random effects.Results: No specific regimen showed a statistically significant advantage or disadvantage to another treatment regimen with regard to efficacy. However, the FA implant, 0.59 mg was associated with a higher risk of cataract (RR 4.41, 95% CI 1.51–13.13) and raise in intraocular pressure (IOP) (RR 2.53 95% CI 1.14–6.25) compared with SOC at 24 months. IVTA, 4 mg at 6 months was associated with lower risk of IOP rising compared with FA implant, 0.2 µg/day at 36 months (RR 3.43 95% CI 1.12–11.35).Conclusion: No intravitreal therapeutic regimens showed a significant advantage or disadvantage with regard to efficacy. However, SOC was associated with lower risk of side effects compared with FA implants. IVTA, 4 mg, might be the best choice with lowest risk of IOP rising.Systematic Review Registration:clinicaltrials.gov, identifier CRD42020172953</p

Table4_Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Advanced Intravitreal Therapeutic Agents for Noninfectious Uveitis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.docx

Background: To compare the efficacy and safety of advanced intravitreal therapeutic regimens, including a dexamethasone implant at 350 and 700 μg; a fluocinolone acetonide (FA) implant, 0.2 µg/day, 0.59 and 2.1 mg; intravitreal bevacizumab, 1.25 mg; intravitreal ranibizumab, 0.5 mg; intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (IVTA), 2 and 4 mg; and standard of care (SOC, systemic therapy) for noninfectious uveitis.Methods: We searched the Cochrane Library database, EMBASE, Medline, clinicaltrials.gov until April 2021 with 13 RCTs (1806 participants) identified and conducted a pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analysis with random effects.Results: No specific regimen showed a statistically significant advantage or disadvantage to another treatment regimen with regard to efficacy. However, the FA implant, 0.59 mg was associated with a higher risk of cataract (RR 4.41, 95% CI 1.51–13.13) and raise in intraocular pressure (IOP) (RR 2.53 95% CI 1.14–6.25) compared with SOC at 24 months. IVTA, 4 mg at 6 months was associated with lower risk of IOP rising compared with FA implant, 0.2 µg/day at 36 months (RR 3.43 95% CI 1.12–11.35).Conclusion: No intravitreal therapeutic regimens showed a significant advantage or disadvantage with regard to efficacy. However, SOC was associated with lower risk of side effects compared with FA implants. IVTA, 4 mg, might be the best choice with lowest risk of IOP rising.Systematic Review Registration:clinicaltrials.gov, identifier CRD42020172953</p

Atomic Connectivity Group Contribution Method for Predicting the Phase Transition Properties of Enthalpy and Entropy

In this paper, four atomic connectivity group contribution (ACGC) models are developed for predicting the phase transition properties of organic compounds. These established ACGC models include atomic adjacent groups (AAG), shape factors (SFs), and atomic connectivity factors (ACFs), which are used to predict the entropy of fusion (ΔfusS), standard enthalpy of vaporization (ΔvapH°), standard enthalpy of sublimation (ΔsubH°), and enthalpy of fusion (ΔfusH). Groups are defined as atomic adjacent groups through the relation between the core atom and its neighbor atoms. Shape factors and atomic connectivity factors are proposed to deal with isomers in the group contribution (GC) method. After the introduction of SFs and ACFs into our models, the mean absolute error of the ΔfusS, ΔvapH°, ΔsubH°, and ΔfusH values for isomers decreases by 7.97%, 16.57%, 14.33%, and 6.28%, respectively. The ΔfusS, ΔvapH°, ΔsubH°, and ΔfusH models of ACGC can provide accurate calculation results with high R2 values of 0.945, 0.991, 0.921, and 0.901. Further, it is proved that ACGC models have good predictive ability and robustness through external validation and cross validation