Observational studyOpen heart2021
Impact of risk factors for major cardiovascular diseases: a comparison of life-time observational and Mendelian randomisation findings.
Observational study in Open heart, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mendelian randomization studies of lifestyle-related risk factors for stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2024Pooled it
- Effect of oat supplementation interventions on cardiovascular disease risk markers: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.European journal of nutrition · 2022Pooled it
- Risk factor heterogeneity across cardiovascular disease outcomes in treatment-eligible hypertensive patients.Journal of hypertension · 2026Article
- The causal role of genetically predicted obesity-related traits in heart failure: systematic review and meta-analysis of Mendelian randomization studies.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Observational
- Associations between carotid artery intima-media thickness, traditional risk factors and proteins.NPJ cardiovascular health · 2025Article
- Measured and genetically predicted protein levels and cardiovascular diseases in UK Biobank and China Kadoorie Biobank.Nature cardiovascular research · 2024Article
- Causal relationships between GLP1 receptor agonists, blood lipids, and heart failure: a drug-target mendelian randomization and mediation analysis.Diabetology & metabolic syndrome · 2024Article
- Article
- A combined observational and Mendelian randomization investigation reveals NMR-measured analytes to be risk factors of major cardiovascular diseases.Scientific reports · 2024Observational
- Congestion in Heart Failure: From the Secret of a Mummy to Today's Novel Diagnostic and Therapeutic Approaches: A Comprehensive Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Article
- Review
- Royal jelly: a predictive, preventive and personalised strategy for novel treatment options in non-communicable diseases.The EPMA journal · 2023Review
- The bidirectional association between atrial fibrillation and myocardial infarction.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2023Review
- Serum LDL-C/HDL-C ratio and the risk of carotid plaques: a longitudinal study.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2022Article
- Lycopene: A Natural Arsenal in the War against Oxidative Stress and Cardiovascular Diseases.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Longitudinal trajectories of blood lipid levels in an ageing population sample of Russian Western-Siberian urban population.PloS one · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study compared the strength and causality of associations between major risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and the four major CVDs: myocardial infarction, ischaemic stroke, heart failure and atrial fibrillation. Both a long-term follow-up in an observational cohort and Mendelian randomisation (MR) were used for this aim.
methodsIn the Uppsala Longitudinal Study of Adult Men study, 2322 men, all aged 50 years, were assessed for CVD risk factors and then followed for four decades regarding incident CVDs. The two-sample MR part used public available Genome-Wide Association Study (GWAS) data.
resultsIn multivariate analyses, systolic blood pressure was overall by far the most important risk factor, since it was related to all four CVDs, both in observational and MR analyses. Body mass index was the second most overall important risk factor, being linked to all four CVDs, except ischaemic stroke, both in observational and MR analyses. Smoking was an important risk factor for ischaemic stroke and heart failure, both in observational and MR analyses, while low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol mainly was related to myocardial infarction. Diabetes was mainly a causal risk factor for incident myocardial infarction and heart failure. Neither HDL-cholesterol nor triglycerides were of major importance as risk factors in these multivariable models.
conclusionBy combining long-term observational data with genetic data, we show that the impact and causal role of specific established cardiovascular risk factors varies between different major CVDs. Systolic blood pressure was causally related to all four cardiovascular outcomes and was therefore, overall, the most important risk factor.
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.