SynthesisFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2025
A systematic review and meta-analysis of the association between cardiovascular health determined by life's essential 8 and risk of mortality and major non-communicable diseases.
Synthesis in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- American Heart Association cardiovascular health metrics and cancer outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.American heart journal · 2026Pooled it
- The relationship between cardiovascular health and common mental disorders among adults aged ≤ 50 years: a systematic review of observational studies.BMC psychiatry · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to explore the associations between cardiovascular health (CVH) and the risk of mortality and major non-communicable diseases by conducting a meta-analysis. Methods: Several databases including Pubmed, Embase, Web of science, Scopus were searched for studies exploring the prospective associations between ideal CVH and health outcomes compared with the poor CVH status and published up to January 20, 2025. Adjusted relative risks (RRs) were used to calculate pooled effect size using random-effect models. Results: This study included a total of 46 eligible studies. When comparing the ideal CVH score category to the poor CVH score category, the pooled RRs were 0.44 (95% CI: 0.40-0.48) for all-cause mortality, 0.33 (95% CI: 0.29-0.39) for CVD mortality, 0.51 (95% CI: 0.46-0.57) for total cancer mortality, 0.36 (95% CI: 0.33-0.39) for CVD, 0.75 (95% CI: 0.69-0.81) for total cancer and 0.65(95% CI: 0.55-0.96) for all-cause dementia, respectively. We also observed significant reduction of risk of diabetes, NAFLD, depression, anxiety, chronic kidney diseases, etc. Due to limited literatures and high heterogeneity, some of these results required further validation. Dose-response meta-analysis showed a linear reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality, total cancer mortality and a nonlinear reduction of CVD mortality and incident stroke, myocardial infarction. Conclusions: This study finds that ideal CVH score is strongly inversely associated with the risk of all-cause, CVD and total cancer mortality, as well as incident several common NCDs. There's a linear dose-response reduction of risk of all-cause mortality, total cancer mortality and a nonlinear dose-response reduction of risk of CVD mortality, incident CVD, stroke, myocardial infarction with the increase of CVH score. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO, identifier CRD42024494354.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.