SynthesisBMC medicine2026
Circadian rhythm disruption in cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of mechanistic evidence from animal models.
Synthesis in BMC medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
backgroundCardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of death worldwide. While traditional risk factors are well-established, emerging evidence suggests shift work causing circadian rhythm disruption significantly contributes to CVD risk. This systematic review investigated molecular mechanisms linking circadian disruption with cardiovascular pathophysiology through in vivo models.
methodsWe systematically searched Medline, Embase, and Web of Science through February 2025. Studies employing genetic (clock gene knockouts/mutations) or environmental (light phase shift, sleep deprivation) models of circadian disruption in vivo were included. Meta-analyses were performed for key cardiovascular indicators, and certainty of evidence was evaluated using a modified GRADE approach.
resultsAmong 9012 references, 34 studies met inclusion criteria. Following quality assessment for study design and reporting, 32 studies with low or moderate risk of bias were included in the synthesis. Meta-analyses revealed cardiac hypertrophy as the most robust finding, with high-certainty evidence for increased left ventricular mass-to-body weight ratio (LV/BW; SMD: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.38 to 1.39) and moderate-certainty evidence for increased cardiomyocyte size. These convergent organ and cellular-level findings, supported by elevated natriuretic peptides and pro-fibrotic markers, indicate circadian disruption contributes to pathological cardiac remodeling. Sensitivity analyses revealed low-certainty evidence for impaired systolic function, with significant reductions in ejection fraction (SMD: - 1.70, 95% CI: - 3.22 to - 0.17) and fractional shortening (SMD: - 1.60, 95% CI: - 2.71 to - 0.49). Low-certainty evidence was found for impaired endothelium-dependent vasorelaxation (SMD: - 2.72, 95% CI: - 4.90 to - 0.53) based on three genetic model studies with high heterogeneity and elevated triglyceride levels (SMD: 1.64, 95% CI: 0.07 to 3.21). Other markers showed very low-certainty evidence.
conclusionsThis systematic review improves mechanistic understanding of CVD development following circadian misalignment by demonstrating cardiac hypertrophy as a major pathophysiological consequence in animal models. Cardiac structural changes at organ and cellular levels, supported by biomarkers of pathological remodeling, indicate circadian disruption contributes to adverse cardiac remodeling. Future animal research should prioritize standardized protocols, sex-balanced designs, and environmental models replicating human shiftwork patterns. Substantial epidemiological gaps remain, warranting further investigation in shift workers.
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.