4.6 Article

Prediction of Incident Stroke Events Based on Retinal Vessel Caliber: A Systematic Review and Individual-Participant Meta-Analysis

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 170, 期 11, 页码 1323-1332

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwp306

关键词

cohort studies; meta-analysis; retinal vessels; risk; stroke

资金

  1. Australian National Health and Medical Research Council [402764, 358395]
  2. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [N01-HC-85079, N01-HC-85086, N01-HC-35129, N01 HC-15103, N01 HC-55222, N01-HC-75150, N01-HC-45133, U01 HL080295, N01-HC-55015, N01-HC-55016, N01-HC-55018, N01-HC- 55019, N01-HC-55020, N01-HC-55021, N01-HC-55022]
  3. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The caliber of the retinal vessels has been shown to be associated with stroke events. However, the consistency and magnitude of association, and the changes in predicted risk independent of traditional risk factors, are unclear. To determine the association between retinal vessel caliber and the risk of stroke events, the investigators combined individual data from 20,798 people, who were free of stroke at baseline, in 6 cohort studies identified from a search of the Medline (National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, Maryland) and EMBASE (Elsevier B.V., Amsterdam, the Netherlands) databases. During follow-up of 5-12 years, 945 (4.5%) incident stroke events were recorded. Wider retinal venular caliber predicted stroke (pooled hazard ratio = 1.15, 95% confidence interval: 1.05, 1.25 per 20-mu m increase in caliber), but the caliber of retinal arterioles was not associated with stroke (pooled hazard ratio = 1.00, 95% confidence interval: 0.92, 1.08). There was weak evidence of heterogeneity in the hazard ratio for retinal venular caliber, which may be attributable to differences in follow-up strategies across studies. Inclusion of retinal venular caliber in prediction models containing traditional stroke risk factors reassigned 10.1% of people at intermediate risk into different, mostly lower, risk categories.

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

4.6
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