SynthesisBMC neurology2026
Risk of myocardial infarction in patients with multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC neurology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMultiple sclerosis (MS) is associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity, yet the magnitude of myocardial infarction (MI) risk remains uncertain. With newer cohort studies and advances in meta-analytic methods, an updated evidence synthesis is warranted. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantify MI risk in MS patients.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, and Scopus from inception through December 2025 for observational studies comparing MI risk between adults with MS and controls. Random-effects meta-analysis using restricted maximum likelihood estimation with Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman adjustment was performed. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE. Mendelian randomization evidence was synthesized separately.
resultsTwenty cohorts from 18 studies were included. Seven cohorts (97,996 MS patients; 824,497 controls) contributed to the primary meta-analysis after excluding one study due to overlapping populations. MS patients had significantly increased MI risk (RR 1.70, 95% CI: 1.57–1.85; p < 0.0001) with moderate heterogeneity (I²=40.3%). The 95% prediction interval (1.60–1.81) indicated consistently elevated risk across settings. Secondary analyses showed increased stroke risk (RR 1.66, 95% CI: 1.01–2.73). Subgroup analyses revealed no significant differences by geographic region (p = 0.066), adjustment status (p = 0.45), or effect measure type (p = 0.79). Leave-one-out sensitivity analysis confirmed robust findings (RR range: 1.69–1.76). Mendelian randomization evidence showed a weak genetic association (OR 1.03, 95% CI: 1.00-1.06). GRADE certainty was very low.
conclusionsMS patients have a 70% increased risk of MI compared to individuals without MS. This risk elevation, comparable to other autoimmune conditions with established cardiovascular screening guidelines, supports the need for enhanced cardiovascular surveillance in MS populations.
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.