ArticleClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2020
Risk of Myocardial Infarction Among New Users of Calcium Supplements Alone or Combined With Vitamin D: A Population-Based Case-Control Study.
Article in Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 2020. 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.
- Association between serum calcium level and the risk of acute kidney injury in patients with acute myocardial infarction: evidences from the MIMIC-IV database.Renal failure · 2024Article
- Dietary Minerals and Incident Cardiovascular Outcomes among Never-Smokers in a Danish Case-Cohort Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Article
- Risk of Ischemic Stroke Associated with Calcium Supplements and Interaction with Oral Bisphosphonates: A Nested Case-Control Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Osteoporosis Prevention and Treatment: The Risk of Comorbid Cardiovascular Events in Postmenopausal Women.Cureus · 2022Review
- Differential effects of antidepressant subgroups on risk of acute myocardial infarction: A nested case-control study.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2020Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A population-based case-control study was conducted to evaluate the risk of acute myocardial infarction among new users of calcium supplements either in monotherapy (CaM) or in combination with vitamin D (CaD). A total of 23,025 cases and 114,851 controls randomly sampled from the underlying cohort and matched with cases by age, sex, and index date were included. New users of CaM and CaD were categorized as current users, recent users, past users, and nonusers. We computed adjusted odds ratios (AORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) among current users as compared with nonusers through a conditional logistic regression. No increased risk was associated with CaM overall (59 cases (0.26%) and 273 controls (0.24%); AOR = 0.80; 95% CI 0.59-1.09), nor was it found in any of the conditions examined. Instead, the use of CaD was associated with a decreased risk (275 cases (1.19%) and 1,160 controls (1.45%); AOR = 0.78; 95% CI 0.67-0.90), dose and duration-dependent, and particularly evident in patients with a high cardiovascular risk (AOR = 0.59; 95% CI 0.43-0.81).
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.