Spinal cord injury and risk of overall and type specific cardiovascular diseases: A meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a growing concern among people with spinal cord injury (SCI). This meta-analysis aims to explore the risk of overall CVD and specific types of cardiovascular events among SCI patients. METHODS: This meta-analysis is registered on PROSPERO (CRD CRD42024537888). The data sources comprised PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and reference lists of the included studies. The literature collection span is from database establishment until April 17, 2024. This meta-analysis encompassed observational studies investigating the association between SCI and the risk of overall types of CVD or specific CVD types. Risk of bias was evaluated utilizing the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Scale. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were aggregated using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Our initial search generated 5357 relevant records form these international databases. This meta-analysis encompassed 9 observational studies involving 2,282,691 individuals, comprising 193,045 patients with SCI and 2,209,646 controls. We observed a 1.56-fold [OR = 1.56, 95% CI (1.43, 1.70), I2 = 91.3%, P < 0.001] rise in the risk of overall types of CVD among SCI patients, with a 1.82-fold increase in males and a 1.76-fold increase in females. SCI patients without comorbidities exhibited a 2.10-fold elevated risk of overall CVD types, while those with comorbidities had a 1.48-fold increased risk. Concerning specific CVD types, SCI patients showed a 1.58-fold [OR = 1.57, 95% CI (1.22, 2.03), I2 = 92.4%] higher risk of myocardial infarction, a 1.52-fold [OR = 1.52, 95% CI (1.07, 2.16), I2 = 88.7%] increase in atrial fibrillation, a 1.64-fold [OR = 1.64, 95% CI (1.22, 2.20), I2 = 95.5%] elevation in heart failure risk, and 2.38-fold [OR = 2.38, 95% CI (1.29, 4.40), I2 = 92.5%] increments in stroke risk. But there was no statistically significant difference in the risk of hypertension [OR = 1.54, 95% CI (0.98, 2.42), I2 = 96.6%]. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of overall CVD in SCI patients surpassed that of the non-SCI control group, with elevated risks of specific cardiovascular events like myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, and stroke. Clinicians should prioritize awareness of CVD risks in SCI patients.
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 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.067 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".