The impact of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid supplementation on the incidence of cardiovascular events and complications in peripheral arterial disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individuals with peripheral arterial disease are at higher risk for cardiovascular events than the general population. While supplementation with omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) has been shown to improve vascular function, it remains unclear if supplementation decreases serious clinical outcomes. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether omega-3 PUFA supplementation reduces the incidence of cardiovascular events and complications in adults with peripheral arterial disease. METHODS: We searched five electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Scopus and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) from inception to 6 December 2013 to identify randomized trials of omega-3 PUFA supplementation (from fish or plant oils) that lasted ≥12 weeks in adults with peripheral arterial disease. No language filters were applied. Data on trial design, population characteristics, and health outcomes were extracted. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events; secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction, cardiovascular death, stroke, angina, amputation, revascularization procedures, maximum and pain-free walking distance, adverse effects of the intervention, and quality of life. Trial quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. RESULTS: Of 741 citations reviewed, we included five trials enrolling 396 individuals. All included trials were of unclear or high risk of bias. There was no evidence of a protective association of omega-3 PUFA supplementation against major adverse cardiac events (pooled risk ratio 0.73, 95% CI 0.22 to 2.41, I2 75%, 2 trials, 288 individuals) or other serious clinical outcomes. Adverse events and compliance were poorly reported. CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed that insufficient evidence exists to suggest a beneficial effect of omega-3 PUFA supplementation in adults with peripheral arterial disease with regard to cardiovascular events and other serious clinical outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".