4.7 Article

Comparison of the Sex-Specific Associations Between Systolic Blood Pressure and the Risk of Cardiovascular Disease A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 124 Cohort Studies, Including 1.2 Million Individuals

期刊

STROKE
卷 44, 期 9, 页码 2394-2401

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.113.001624

关键词

blood pressure; cardiovascular diseases; meta-analysis; risk factors; sex differences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Purpose Conflicting results have been reported on whether the association between increments in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and cardiovascular disease differs between men and women. We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis to compare reliably sex-specific associations between SBP and cardiovascular risk. Methods PubMed MEDLINE was systematically searched for prospective population-based cohort studies published between January 1, 1966, and March 31, 2012. Studies were selected if they presented sex-specific estimates, with associated variability, of the relative risk for either ischemic heart disease or stroke according to SBP. The data were pooled using random effects models with inverse variance weighting, and estimates of the ratio of the relative risks per 10 mmHg increment in SBP, comparing women with men, were derived. Results Data from 124 prospective cohort studies, including information on 1197472 individuals (44% women) and 26176 stroke and 24434 ischemic heart disease events, were included. Overall, there was no evidence to suggest a sex difference in the relationship between SBP and either the risk of stroke (pooled ratio of relative risks, 0.98 [95% confidence interval, 0.96; 1.01]; P=0.13) or ischemic heart disease (pooled ratio of relative risks, 1.00 [95% confidence interval, 0.97; 1.04]; P=0.85). Conclusions Elevated levels of SBP are a major risk factor for stroke and ischemic heart diseases in both women and men. This study unequivocally demonstrates the broadly similar impact of SBP increments on cardiovascular outcomes in both sexes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据