Funnel plot analysis for publication bias.

<p>(a) rs12423791 allelic contrast model (C vs. G). (b) rs6214 allelic contrast model (A vs. G).</p

Flow chart of the study selection process.

<p>Literature search flow.</p

Main results of the pooled ORs in the meta-analysis.

<p>*The Q statistic was used to estimate heterogeneity, and a <i>P</i>≤0.10 was considered statistically significant for the Q-statistic test.</p><p>Main results of the pooled ORs in the meta-analysis.</p

Forest plots of the pooled ORs with 95% CIs for associations between IGF-1 rs6241 and high myopia in codominant model, dominant model, and recessive model.

<p>(a) Codominant model (AA vs. GG); events: the number of AA genotype in a. (b) Codominant model (AG vs. GG); events: the number of AG genotype in b. (c) Dominant model (AA+AG vs. GG); events: the number of AA+AG genotype in c. (d) Recessive model (AA vs. AG+GG); events: the number of AA genotype in d.</p

Forest plots of the pooled ORs with 95% CIs for associations between IGF-1 rs6214 and high myopia in allelic contrast model (A vs. G).

<p>Events: the number of individuals carrying the A allele.</p

Forest plots of the pooled ORs with 95% CIs for associations between IGF-1 rs12423791 and high myopia in codominant model, dominant model, and recessive model.

<p>(a) Codominant model (CC vs. GG); events: the number of CC genotype in a. (b) Codominant model (CG vs. GG); events: the number of CG genotype in b. (c) Dominant model (CC+CG vs. GG); events: the number of CC+CG genotype in c. (d) Recessive model (CC Vs. CG+GG); events: the number of CC genotype in d.</p

Forest plots of the pooled ORs with 95% CIs for associations between IGF-1 rs12423791 and high myopia in allelic contrast model (C vs. G).

<p>Events: the number of individuals carrying the C allele.</p

Results of the subgroup analysis by study population.

<p>*The Q statistic was used to estimate heterogeneity, and a <i>P</i>≤0.10 was considered statistically significant for the Q-statistic test.</p><p>Results of the subgroup analysis by study population.</p

Evaluation of publication bias by Egger’s linear regression test.

<p>Evaluation of publication bias by Egger’s linear regression test.</p

Preparation and evaluation of wet-milled usnic acid nanocrystal suspension for better bioaffinity

<p><b>Objective:</b> To prepare a new nanosystem of usnic acid (UA) with higher solid content and higher bioavailability.</p> <p><b>Methods:</b> Usnic acid nanocrystal suspensions were prepared by the wet milling method, and then the particle size distributions and zeta potential were determined with the Nano ZS90 laser diffraction particle size analyzer. The particles morphology of UA-NCS were observed by scanning electron microscopy method. In addition, solubility and dissolution of UA-NCS in water and phosphate buffer solution were determined <i>in vitro</i>, analyzed by the HPLC method, and then the cellular uptake and pharmacokinetic were carried out on the Caco-2 cells and rats, analyzed by the UPLC-MS/MS method.</p> <p><b>Results:</b> Particle size distributions and zeta potential of the UA nanocrystal suspension were 268.7 ± 4.0 nm and –23.1 ± 0.7 mV, respectively. About the dissolution rate of UA, nanosuspension were significantly faster and higher than common suspension in water and phosphate buffer. And in cellular uptake experiments, the ratio of the maximum amount of drug in unit protein of UA nanosuspension to common suspension was 2.8 times. In rats, oral absorption of nanocrystal UA were superior to the ordinary groups, with the 348% of the maximum concentration and 181% of the AUC after the same dosage administration.</p> <p><b>Conclusion:</b> The wet-milling technique was suitable for the preparation of UA nanocrystal suspension, and a new nanosystem of UA with higher solid content and higher bioavailability was achieved.</p