ReviewJRSM cardiovascular disease
Meta-analysis of the association between marital status and cardiovascular diseases.
Review in JRSM cardiovascular disease. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deep learning-derived retinal age gap and its associations with lifestyle, systemic, and ocular health in a health screening cohort.GeroScience · 2026Article
- Knowledge, risk perception, and associated factors of cardiovascular disease among adult with type 2 diabetic mellitus attending public hospitals in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: A multicenter cross-sectional study.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2026Article
- Cardiovascular disease risk and associated factors among people with hypertension in the West Bank, Palestine.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Significant morbidity and death are connected to cardiovascular disease (CVD), with classic risk factors such as age, sex, smoking, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes accounting for 80% of the risk. The other 20% of risk variables are poorly understood. The influence of marital status is one more element whose function is unclear. A comprehensive literature review was conducted on PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases and data from the included articles were extracted and analyzed. A meta-analysis was conducted using the findings of the 13 publications. In this study, we evaluated the incidence of CVD across different marital statuses by analyzing 13 cohort studies from 11 countries with 1,809,825 participants. Our results showed no significant differences in CVD incidence among married (HR 1.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84-1.20) and unmarried individuals (HR 1.24, 95% CI 0.95-1.62). Divorced individuals had a 28% higher incidence (HR 1.28, 95% CI 1.14-1.44), and widowed individuals showed a 28% increase (HR 1.28, 95% CI 1.11-1.48). The results show no discernible difference in the incidence of CVD between married and single people. However, divorced and widowed people have a noticeably increased risk of CVD incidence. The high heterogeneity of the research highlights the complexity of the link. These results emphasize how crucial it is to take marital status into account when evaluating CVD risk and developing preventative measures.
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.