ArticleAnnals of global health2021
Bipolar Disorder and Cardiovascular Risk in Rural versus Urban Populations in Colombia: A Comparative Clinical and Epidemiological Evaluation.
Article in Annals of global health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Background: Various multifactorial elements may contribute toward the urban and rural disparities in cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, particularly among patients with psychiatric diseases. Objective: To investigate whether rural patients diagnosed and treated for Bipolar Disorder (BD) have different risk profiles and outcomes of CVD compared to urban (BD) patients. Methods: We conducted a case-control study that included 125 BD patients (cases) from rural Filadelfia, Colombia and 250 BD patients (controls) treated in Bogotá, Colombia. Cases and controls were 2:1, matched by age and sex. We applied the Framingham Heart Study (FHS) risk calculator to assess risk. Differences by rural/urban status (i.e., case-control status) were assessed by chi-square, paired t-tests, and logistic regression. Findings: Rural BD patients were found to have lower education (p = 1.0 × 10 Conclusion: Based on increase in morbidity but lower predictive risk in the rural population, our study suggests that the FHS-CVD calculator may not be optimal to assess CVD risk in this population.
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.