ReviewAmerican journal of cardiovascular disease2025
An updated meta-analysis on the association between celiac disease and cardiovascular diseases.
Review in American journal of cardiovascular disease, 2025. 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.
- Sex-related differences in cardiovascular inflammation and metabolomics in a humanized transgenic mouse model of celiac disease.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesResearch on the relationship between celiac disease (CD) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) is still ongoing, and different studies have reported contradictory findings. To carry out a meta-analysis and systematic review to look into the connection between CD and CVD risk.
methodsA thorough search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases up to February 19, 2024. Relevant articles were extracted, and the titles, abstracts, and full texts of the related articles were screened. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools.
resultsNine cohort and one case-control studies involving 49,621,333 individuals were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled analysis revealed a 7% increased risk of CVD in CD patients compared to controls (OR: 1.07, 95% CI: 1.03-1.10, P < 0.05). Significant heterogeneity was observed among studies (I
conclusionThis meta-analysis provides evidence of a modest but significant increase in CVD risk in patients with CD. The results highlight the importance of considering cardiovascular health in CD treatment and the need for further research to elucidate the mechanisms underlying this association and to develop targeted prevention strategies.
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.