4.7 Review

Calcium Supplements and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease: A Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials

期刊

NUTRIENTS
卷 13, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu13020368

关键词

calcium supplements; cardiovascular disease; randomized controlled trials; meta-analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This meta-analysis found that calcium supplements significantly increased the risk of cardiovascular disease in healthy postmenopausal women by about 15%, particularly with dietary calcium intake of 700-1000 mg or supplementary calcium intake of 1000 mg per day.
Background: Recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs) have reported controversial findings regarding the associations between calcium supplements on the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the association between them. Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and the bibliographies of relevant articles for double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs in November, 2020. Relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the risk of cardiovascular disease were calculated using a random effects model. The main outcomes were CVD, coronary heart disease (CHD), and cerebrovascular disease. Results: A total of 13 double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs (n = 28,935 participants in an intervention group and 14,243 in a control group)) were included in the final analysis. Calcium supplements significantly increased the risk of CVD (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.06-1.25], I2 = 0.0%, n = 14) and CHD (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.05-1.28], I2 = 0.0%, n = 9) in double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs, specifically in healthy postmenopausal women. In the subgroup meta-analysis, dietary calcium intake of 700-1000 mg per day or supplementary calcium intake of 1000 mg per day significantly increased the risk of CVD and CHD. Conclusions: The current meta-analysis found that calcium supplements increased a risk of CVD by about 15% in healthy postmenopausal women.

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