SynthesisBMJ open2021
Are interventions to improve cardiovascular disease risk factors in premenopausal women effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Offering a lifestyle intervention to women of premenopausal age as primary prevention for cardiovascular disease? - assessing its cost-effectiveness.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2022Pooled it
- Update on Management of Cardiovascular Diseases in Women.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesNon-traditional risk factors place young women at increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) over their lifetime. The current study undertakes a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the effectiveness of primary prevention interventions for CVD in premenopausal women.
methodsAn electronic literature search was performed in key databases in July 2018 and updated in May 2020. RCTs that recruited predominately female participants with a proportion aged under 55 years and that compared primary prevention interventions of CVD with usual practice were included. Two reviewers undertook the selection process for study inclusion. Meta-analysis was conducted for studies based on the same intervention in order to synthesise the results.
results14 RCTs with sample size ranging from 49 to 39 876 were included. Interventions included diet (2), vitamin E/antioxidants (3), lifestyle modification programme (7) and aspirin (2). The meta-analysis results indicated that diet nor vitamin E/antioxidant did not significantly lower the CVD risk profiles, while lifestyle modification programme involving components of lifestyle education, counselling and multiple follow-ups showed great potential to improve risk profiles. The lifestyle modification intervention improved blood pressure (-2.11 mm Hg, 95% CI -4.32 to 0.11, for systolic and -3.31 mm Hg (95% CI -4.72 to -1.91, for diastolic), physical activity (30.72 MET-min/week, 95% CI 23.57 to 37.87, for moderate physical activity 12.70 MET-min/week, 95% CI 8.27 to 17.14, for vigorous physical activity) and fasting blood glucose (-0.37 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.15). Subgroup meta-analysis in studies with a mean age under 51 years old suggested that lifestyle modification intervention remained to be effective in improving physical activity and fasting blood glucose.
conclusionThe effective interventions identified in this review although with a small sample size and short duration could potentially inform future design of primary prevention of CVD in premenopausal women.
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.