MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414480575 · doi:10.1016/j.ejvs.2025.09.040

Is the Ankle Brachial Pressure Index an Independent Predictor for Cardiovascular Morbidity and Death in the Asymptomatic Population? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4414480575 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sarah Jane Messeder, Emily Salt, Coral Pepper, Ria Sanghavi, Liam Musto, Athanasios Saratzis, Matthew J. Bown

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeripheral Artery Disease Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBritish Heart FoundationBoston Scientific Japan
KeywordsAsymptomaticAnkleBlood pressureMEDLINEDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess whether the ankle brachial pressure index (ABPI) is independently associated with cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in the asymptomatic general population. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases. REVIEW METHODS: Studies assessing ABPI in a general population with > 30 days follow up were included. A random effects meta-analysis was completed following PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO: CRD42022383573). Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and certainty was assessed through Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Outcomes included major cardiovascular events, cardiovascular death, coronary events, cerebrovascular events, and all cause death. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies from 23 cohorts were included (20 prospective, four retrospective, and one propensity matched), representing 181 598 individuals. An ABPI < 0.9 was statistically significantly associated with higher cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 2.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.70 - 2.44, p < .001; GRADE, low certainty), major cardiovascular events (HR 1.74, 95% CI 1.56 - 1.94, p < .001; GRADE, very low certainty), coronary events (HR 2.80, 95% CI 2.11 - 3.70, p < .001; GRADE, low certainty), cerebrovascular events (HR 1.75, 95% CI 1.34 - 2.30, p < .001; GRADE, low certainty), and all cause mortality (HR 1.90, 95% CI 1.71 - 2.10, p < .001; GRADE, very low certainty) compared with a normal ABPI. An ABPI > 1.3 was statistically significantly associated with higher cardiovascular mortality (HR 2.39, 95% CI 2.02 - 2.83, p < .001; GRADE, low certainty) and all cause mortality (HR 1.92, 95% CI 1.54 - 2.39, p < .001; GRADE, very low certainty) compared with a normal ABPI. An ABPI > 1.3 was not statistically significant for major cardiovascular events (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.74 - 1.55, p = .70; GRADE, low certainty) or cerebrovascular events (HR 1.80, 95% CI 0.91 - 3.58, p = .090; GRADE, very low certainty). CONCLUSION: An abnormal ABPI is associated with higher cardiovascular and all cause mortality rates. Randomised evidence is needed to assess the cost effectiveness, efficacy, and benefits of screening.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.032
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Vascular and Endovascular SurgerySame topicPeripheral Artery Disease ManagementFrench-language works237,207