Effect of Cigarette Smoking on Risk of Hip Fracture in Men: A Meta-Analysis of 14 Prospective Cohort Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several observational studies have suggested an association between cigarette smoking and risk of hip fracture. However, no formal systematic review or meta-analysis was performed to summarize this risk in men. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search was applied to MEDLINE, EMBASE, and web of science (up to November 1 2016). All prospective cohort studies assessing risk of hip fracture with the factor of cigarette smoking in men without language restriction were reviewed, and qualities of all included studies were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Two authors independently assessed literatures and extracted information eligibility, and any disagreement was resolved by consensus. Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale was used to evaluate studies' quality in meta-analyses. We calculated the RR with 95% CIs in a random-effects model as well as the fixed-effects model using the metan command in the STATA version 12.0 (StataCorp, USA). RESULTS: Fourteen prospective cohort studies were eligible for the present analysis. A meta-analysis of 12 prospective studies showed that the relative risk (RR) for current male smoking was 1.47 [95% confidence interval (CI) (1.28-1.66), p = 0.54; I2 = 0%]. Subgroup analyses show study characteristics (including geography region, length of follow-up, size of cohorts and study quality) did not substantially influence these positive associations. Eight studies reported the RRs for former smokers compared with never smokers and the pooled RR was 1.15 [95% CI, (0.97-1.34), (I2 = 0%, p = 0.975)]. CONCLUSIONS: The present meta-analysis of 14 prospective studies suggests that, compared with never smokers, cigarette smoking increases risk of hip fracture in man, specifically in current smokers. However, further larger prospective cohorts with more power or meta-analysis of individual patient data are needed to confirm this association.
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 | 0.025 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.070 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".