ArticlePloS one2015
Education and Mortality in the Rome Longitudinal Study.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cognitive trajectories in older adults and associated mortality and predictors.Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology · 2025Article
- Article
- Differences in mortality between temporary and permanent workers: results from the Rome Longitudinal Study.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Long-term exposure to air pollution and risk of venous thromboembolism in a large administrative cohort.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2022Article
- The impact of driving time, distance, and socioeconomic factors on outcomes of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.Public health in practice (Oxford, England) · 2020Article
- Mortality inequalities by occupational status and type of job in men and women: results from the Rome Longitudinal Study.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA large body of evidence supports an inverse association between socioeconomic status and mortality. We analysed data from a large cohort of residents in Rome followed-up between 2001 and 2012 to assess the relationship between individual education and mortality. We distinguished five causes of death and investigated the role of age, gender, and birthplace.
methodsFrom the Municipal Register we enrolled residents of Rome on October 21st 2001 and collected information on educational level attained from the 2001 Census. We selected Italian citizens aged 30-74 years and followed-up their vital status until 2012 (n = 1,283,767), identifying the cause of death from the Regional Mortality Registry. We calculated hazard ratios (HRs) for overall and cause-specific mortality in relation to education. We used age, gender, and birthplace for adjusted or stratified analyses. We used the inverse probability weighting approach to account for right censoring due to emigration.
resultsWe observed an inverse association between education (none vs. post-secondary+ level) and overall mortality (HRs(95%CIs): 2.1(1.98-2.17), males; 1.5(1.46-1.59), females) varying according to demographic characteristics. Cause-specific analysis also indicated an inverse association with education, in particular for respiratory, digestive or circulatory system related-mortality, and the youngest people seemed to be more vulnerable to low education.
conclusionOur results confirm the inverse association between education and overall or cause-specific mortality and show differentials particularly marked among young people compared to the elderly. The findings provide further evidence from the Mediterranean area, and may contribute to national and cross-country comparisons in Europe to understand the mechanisms generating socioeconomic differentials especially during the current recession period.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.