Trial reportPloS one2017
Changes in the living arrangement and risk of stroke in Japan; does it matter who lives in the household? Who among the family matters?
Trial report in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Scoping Review of the Association of Social Disadvantage and Cerebrovascular Disease Confirmed by Neuroimaging and Neuropathology.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- The association between objective measures of residence and worksite neighborhood environment, and self-reported leisure-time physical activities: The Aichi Workers' Cohort Study.Preventive medicine reports · 2018Article
- Prehospital Factors Associated with Delayed Hospital Arrival of Stroke Patients: A Regional Single-Center Study from India.Annals of Indian Academy of NeurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Previous studies have suggested associations of family composition with morbidity and mortality; however, the evidence of associations with risk of stroke is limited. We sought to examine the impact of changes in the household composition on risk of stroke and its types in Japanese population. Cox proportional hazard modelling was used to assess the risk of incident stroke and stroke types within a cohort of 77,001 Japanese men and women aged 45-74 years who experienced addition and/or loss of family members [spouse, child(ren), parent(s) and others] to their households over a five years interval (between 1990-1993 and 1995-1998). During 1,043,446 person-years of the follow-up for 35,247 men and 41,758 women, a total of 3,858 cases of incident stroke (1485 hemorrhagic and 2373 ischemic) were documented. When compared with a stable family composition, losing at least one family member was associated with 11-15% increased risk of stroke in women and men; hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) were 1.11 (1.01-1.22) and 1.15 (1.05-1.26), respectively. The increased risk was associated with the loss of a spouse, and was evident for ischemic stroke in men and hemorrhagic stroke in women. The addition of any family members to the household was not associated with risk of stroke in men, whereas the addition of a parent (s) to the household was associated with increased risk in women: 1.49 (1.09-2.28). When the loss of a spouse was accompanied by the addition of other family members to the household, the increased risk of stroke disappeared in men: 1.18 (0.85-1.63), but exacerbated in women: 1.58 (1.19-2.10). In conclusion, men who have lost family members, specifically a spouse have higher risk of ischemic stroke, and women who gained family members; specifically a parent (s) had the higher risk of hemorrhagic stroke than those with a stable family composition.
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.