ArticleInternational journal of preventive medicine2010
Prevalence of Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factors in Migrants Participating in the PEP Family Heart Study, Nuremberg.
Article in International journal of preventive medicine, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ideal cardiovascular health among Ghanaian populations in three European countries and rural and urban Ghana: the RODAM study.Internal and emergency medicine · 2018Article
- A review on changes in food habits among immigrant women and implications for health.Journal of immigrant and minority health · 2015Review
- Reference Ranges for Serum Total Cholesterol, HDL-Cholesterol, LDL-Cholesterol, and VLDL-Cholesterol and Triglycerides in Healthy Iranian Ahvaz Population.Indian journal of clinical biochemistry : IJCB · 2013Article
- Estimating Blood Pressure in Children and Adolescents: Should Body Weight be Included?International journal of preventive medicine · 2013Article
- Cardiovascular risk assessment in South and Middle-East Asians living in the Western countries.Pakistan journal of medical sciencesReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors in adults and their children from the 3 major groups of migrants participating in the PEP Family Heart Study11 and to compare the cardio-metabolic risk profiles between migrants and German participants.
methodsIn this community-based cross-sectional study, anthropometric data, blood pressure and lipid profiles of migrants (480 children, 363 adults) from Turkey (TUR), Eastern Europe (EEU) and German immigrants from the former Soviet Union (GFSU) were compared with age and gender adjusted German (GER) residents (3253 children, 2491 adults).
resultsThe profile of risk factors differed considerably regarding specificity and frequency. The prevalence of ≥3 risk factors was as follows: in GFSU men 62%, women 36%, boys 19% and girls 17%; in TUR men 57%, women 30%, 15% boys and 6% girls; in GER men 48%, women 19%, boys 4% and girls 6%; for EEU men 38%, women 25% and 0% in children. No risk factor was present in GFSU men 13%, women 25%, boys 38% and girls 42%; TUR men 13%, women 28%, boys 27% and girls 22 %; GER men16%, women 45%, boys 46% and girls 41%; EEU men 17%, women 42 %, boys 29% and girls 27%. About 50% of the adults from Turkey and Eastern Europe were current smokers and one third of women and half of men from these two countries were overweight.
conclusionsThe implementation of primary care measures for the prevention of cardiovascular disease in migrants is necessary, and it should consider the ethnic differences and the heterogeneous risk profiles.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21677762PMC3075484W2110049514What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.