scholarly journals Dose–response association between adult height and all–cause mortality: a systematic review and meta–analysis of cohort studies

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Quanman Li ◽  
Yu Liu ◽  
Xizhuo Sun ◽  
Honghui Li ◽  
Cheng Cheng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Dose Response ◽  
Adult Height ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Height Increase ◽  
The Cochrane Library ◽  
Restricted Cubic Splines

Abstract Background We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis from published cohort studies to examine the association of adult height and all-cause mortality and to further explore the dose–response association. Methods PubMed, The Cochrane Library, The Ovid, CNKI, CQVIP and Wanfang databases were searched for articles published from database inception to 6 February 2018. We used the DerSimonian–Laird random-effects model to estimate the quantitative association between adult height and all-cause mortality and the restricted cubic splines to model the dose–response association. Results We included 15 articles, with 1 533 438 death events and 2 854 543 study participants. For each 5-cm height increase below the average, the risk of all-cause mortality was reduced by 7% [relative risk (RR) = 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.89–0.97] for men and 5% (RR = 0.95, 95% CI, 0.90–0.99) for women. All-cause mortality had a U-shaped association with adult height, the lowest risk occurring at 174 cm for men and 158 cm for women (both Pnonlinearity < 0.001). Relative to the shortest adult height (147 cm for men and 137 cm for women), men at 174 cm had a 47% lower likelihood of all-cause mortality and women at 158 cm a 33% lower risk of all-cause mortality. Conclusions Our study suggests that the relation between adult height and all-cause mortality is approximately U-shaped in both men and women.

scholarly journals Association of frailty status with adverse clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19: protocol for a systematic review and dose–response meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. e046980
Author(s):  
Hanjun Pei ◽  
Ying Wang ◽  
Xinghui Zhang ◽  
Wenlong Luo ◽  
Chenghui Zhou
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Dose Response ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Essential Element ◽  
Included Study ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Frailty Status ◽  
All Cause Mortality

IntroductionFrailty status has been recognised as an important prognostic factor of adverse clinical outcomes in various clinical settings. Recently, the role of frailty status in adverse clinical outcomes for COVID-19-infected patients has received increasing attention with controversial results. Hence, we will conduct a comprehensive dose–response meta-analysis to quantitatively evaluate the association between frailty status and adverse clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19.MethodsThe researchers will systematically search PubMed, EMBase, Cochrane Library, ISI Knowledge via Web of Science and MedRxiv or BioRxiv databases (from inception until December 2020) to identify all retrospective and prospective cohort studies. All-cause mortality during hospitalisation will be set as the primary outcome. Univariable or multivariable meta-regression and subgroup analyses will be conducted for the comparison between frail versus non-frail categories. Sensitivity analyses will be used to assess the robustness of our results by removing each included study one at a time to obtain and evaluate the remaining overall estimates of all-cause mortality. To conduct a dose–response meta-analysis for the potential linear or restricted cubic spline regression relationship between frailty status and all-cause mortality, studies with three or more categories will be included.Ethics and disseminationIn accordance with the Institutional Review Board/Independent Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital of Baotou Medical College, ethical approval is not an essential element for the systematic review protocol. This meta-analysis will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020220226.

scholarly journals Optimal cut-off value of elevated cardiac troponin concentrations for myocardial injury predicts clinical outcomes in adult patients with COVID-19: a dose–response analysis protocol for systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. e046575
Author(s):  
Chenghui Zhou ◽  
Hanjun Pei ◽  
Yiming Gao ◽  
Yulin Zhang ◽  
Liang Cao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Dose Response ◽  
Cardiac Troponin ◽  
Myocardial Injury ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
All Cause Mortality

IntroductionAcute myocardial injury in patients with COVID-19 infection has been recognised as one important complication associated with in-hospital mortality. The potential dose–response effect of cardiac troponin (cTn) concentrations on adverse clinical outcomes has not been systematically studied. Hence, we will conduct a comprehensive dose–response meta-analysis to quantitatively evaluate the relationship between elevated cTn concentrations and in-hospital adverse clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19.MethodsWe will search PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and ISI Knowledge via Web of Science databases, as well as preprint databases (medRxiv and bioRxiv), from inception to October 2021, to identify all retrospective and prospective cohorts and randomised controlled studies using related keywords. The primary outcome will be all-cause mortality during hospitalisation. The secondary outcome will be major adverse event (MAE). To conduct a dose–response meta-analysis of the potential linear or restricted cubic spline regression relationship between elevated cTn concentrations and all-cause mortality or MAE, studies with three or more categories of cTn concentrations will be included. Univariable or multivariable meta-regression and subgroup analyses will be conducted to compare elevated and non-elevated categories of cTn concentration. Sensitivity analyses will be used to assess the robustness of our results by removing each included study at one time to obtain and evaluate the remaining overall estimates of all-cause mortality or MAE.Ethics and disseminationIn accordance with the Institutional Review Board/Independent Ethics Committee of Fuwai Hospital, ethical approval was waived for this systematic review protocol. This meta-analysis will be disseminated through a peer-reviewing process for journal publication and conference communication.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020216059.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 175883592090754
Author(s):  
Miao Liu ◽  
Guiyue Wang ◽  
Yuhang Li ◽  
Hongliang Wang ◽  
Haitao Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Bleeding Events ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
The Cochrane Library

Background: Thrombosis is a common complication in patients with cancer. Whether thromboprophylaxis could benefit patients with cancer is unclear. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the efficacy and safety of thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer undergoing surgery or chemotherapy. Methods: We searched the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, EBSCOhost, and Web of Science for studies published before May 2018 to investigate whether thromboprophylaxis measures were more effective than a placebo in patients with cancer. Results: In total, 33 trials with 11,942 patients with cancer were identified. In patients with cancer undergoing surgery, the administration of thromboprophylaxis was associated with decreasing trends in venous thromboembolism (VTE) [relative risk (RR) 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32–0.81] and DVT (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.33–0.87). In patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, the administration of thromboprophylaxis reduced the incidences of VTE, DVT, and pulmonary embolism compared with no thromboprophylaxis (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.40–0.73; RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.31–0.73; RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.32–0.81, respectively). The pooled results regarding major bleeding showed no significant difference between prophylaxis and no prophylaxis in either the surgical or the chemotherapy groups (RR 2.35, 95% CI 0.74–7.52, p = 0.1482, I2 = 0%; RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.93–1.83, p = 0.1274, I2 = 0%, respectively). Conclusion: Thromboprophylaxis did not increase major bleeding events or the incidence of thrombocytopenia. All-cause mortality was not significantly different between those who received thromboprophylaxis and those who did not. This meta-analysis provides evidence that thromboprophylaxis can reduce the number of VTE and DVT events, with no apparent increase in the incidence of major bleeding in patients with cancer.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document