4.6 Review

Hyperuricemia and risk of stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies

Journal

ATHEROSCLEROSIS
Volume 232, Issue 2, Pages 265-270

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2013.11.051

Keywords

Hyperuricemia; Incidence; Mortality; Meta-analysis; Stroke

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: Hyperuricemia may be associated with an increased risk of stroke, but to date results from prospective studies have been inconsistent. This study aimed to evaluate the association between hyperuricemia and risk of stroke incidence and mortality by performing a meta-analysis. Materials and methods: Studies were identified by searching multiple electronic databases through July 13, 2013, and by reviewing reference lists of obtained articles. Prospective studies reported a multivariate-adjusted estimate, represented as relative risk (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between hyperuricemia and risk of stroke incidence and mortality were eligible. A random-effects model was used to compute the pooled risk estimate. Results: A total of fourteen articles including results from 15 prospective studies with 22,571 cases of stroke and 1,042,358 participants were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, presence of hyperuricemia was associated with a significantly greater risk of both stroke incidence (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.02-1.46) and mortality (RR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.24-1.43). In addition, the pooled estimate of multivariate RRs of stroke incidence and mortality were 1.08 (95% CI: 0.85-1.38); 1.26 (95% CI: 1.14-1.40) among men and 1.25 (95% CI: 1.04-1.46); 1.41 (95% CI: 1.31-1.52) among women respectively. Conclusions: Results from this meta-analysis indicate that hyperuricemia may modestly increase the risks of both stroke incidence and mortality. Future studies should explore whether hyperuricemia is a modifiable risk factor for stroke. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available