ArticleBMJ open2018
Population distribution of traditional and the emerging cardiovascular risk factors carotid plaque and IMT: the REFINE-Reykjavik study with comparison with the Tromsø study.
Article in BMJ open, 2018. 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, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multi-view carotid ultrasound is stronger associated with cardiovascular risk factors than presence of plaque or single carotid intima media thickness measurements in subclinical atherosclerosis.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2023Article
- Mapping the burden of diabetes in five small countries in Europe and setting the agenda for health policy and strategic action.Health research policy and systems · 2021Article
- Assessment of Carotid Plaque Stability Using Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound and Its Correlation With the Expression of CD147 and MMP-9 in the Plaque.Frontiers in computational neuroscience · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPopulation statistics for carotid plaque and cardiovascular risk factors reported in scientific journals are usually presented as averages for the population or age and sex adjusted, rather than sex and age groups. Important population differences about atherosclerosis and cardiovascular risk factors may thus be missed. We compare the distribution of cardiovascular risk factors, carotids plaque and carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) in two population-based studies.
methodsCarotid artery atherosclerotic plaque prevalence and risk factors levels for cardiovascular disease by sex in 5-year age groups from the Risk Evaluation For Infarct Estimates Reykjavik study (REFINE-Reykjavik study) were compared with data from the Tromsø 6 study.
resultsThe threshold of carotid plaque presence in the Tromsø 6 study fell between minimal and moderate plaque defined in the REFINE-Reykjavik study reflecting carotid plaque prevalence. The prevalence of minimal carotid plaque in the REFINE-Reykjavik study was 47% in men (40-69 years old) and 38% in women and 11% in men and 7% in women of moderate plaque. The prevalence of any plaque in the Tromsø 6 study was 35% in men and 27% in women. The mean (CIMT) was similar in the studies. In the Tromsø 6 study mean systolic blood pressure was 8 mm Hg higher in men and 10 mm Hg higher in women, mean low-density lipoprotein was 0.5 mmol/L higher in men and 0.3 mmol/L higher in women and the prevalence of smoking was 4% higher in men and 9% higher in women. However, body mass index was 0.8 kg/m
conclusionComparison between Iceland and Norway revealed differences in the prevalence of carotid plaque, which was assumed to be due to different definition of plaque. However, clinically significant differences in conventional cardiovascular risk factors were seen. This underscores the importance of detailed comparison of population data across different populations.
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.