Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29269350›Full record

SynthesisJournal of the American Heart Association2017

Estimates of Mortality Benefit From Ideal Cardiovascular Health Metrics: A Dose Response Meta-Analysis.

Ehimen C Aneni, Alessio Crippa, Chukwuemeka U Osondu, Javier Valero-Elizondo, Adnan Younus, Khurram Nasir, Emir Veledar

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Ehimen C AneniDepartment of Internal Medicine, Mount Sinai Medical Center, Miami Beach, FL.
Alessio CrippaDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Chukwuemeka U OsonduCenter for Healthcare Advancement and Outcomes, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, FL.
Javier Valero-ElizondoCenter for Healthcare Advancement and Outcomes, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, FL.
Adnan YounusCenter for Healthcare Advancement and Outcomes, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, FL.
Khurram NasirCenter for Healthcare Advancement and Outcomes, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, FL.
Emir VeledarCenter for Healthcare Advancement and Outcomes, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, FL emirv@baptisthealth.net.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSeveral studies have shown an inverse relationship between ideal cardiovascular health (CVH) and mortality. However, there are no studies that pool these data to show the shape of the relationship and quantify the mortality benefit from ideal CVH. METHODS AND

resultsWe conducted a systematic internet literature search of multiple databases including MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, and Scopus for longitudinal studies assessing the relationship between ideal CVH and mortality in adults, published between January 1, 2010, and May 31, 2017. We included studies that assessed the relationship between ideal CVH and mortality in populations that were initially free of cardiovascular disease. We conducted a dose-response meta-analysis generating both study-specific and pooled trends from the correlated log hazard ratio estimates of mortality across categories of ideal CVH metrics. A total of 6 studies were included in the meta-analysis. All of the studies indicated a linear decrease in (cardiovascular disease and all-cause) mortality with increasing ideal CVH metrics. Overall, each unit increase in CVH metrics was associated with a pooled hazard ratio for cardiovascular disease mortality of 0.81 (95% confidence interval, 0.75-0.87), while each unit increase in ideal CVH metrics was associated with a pooled hazard ratio of 0.89 (95% confidence interval, 0.86-0.93) for all-cause mortality.

conclusionsOur meta-analysis showed a strong inverse linear dose-response relationship between ideal CVH metrics and both all-cause and cardiovascular disease-related mortality. This study suggests that even modest improvements in CVH is associated with substantial mortality benefit, thus providing a strong public health message advocating for even the smallest improvements in lifestyle.

Indexed as

Health StatusLife StyleQuality Indicators, Health CareCardiovascular DiseasesGlobal HealthHumansRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsSurvival Ratecardiovascular disease preventioncardiovascular disease risk factorsmortality

Identifiers

PMID29269350
PMCPMC5779012

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.