cosa è effettivamente provato sul corpo femminile dopo i quaranta

Vivere più a lungo in buona salute

L'idoneità cardiorespiratoria stimata è un predittore efficace per la mortalità cardiovascolare e per tutte le cause? Una metanalisi.

5 Prove ripetute

Quanto pesa: diversi studi in persone, combinati — il tipo di evidenza più forte che esista.
Tipo di studio
meta-analisi o revisione sistematica
Studiato in
persone
Partecipanti
170,000
Pubblicato
2021 in Atherosclerosis
Citato
17 volte da altri studi
Chi ha pagato
Non dichiarato. PubMed non riporta una dichiarazione di conflitto di interessi per la maggior parte degli articoli; questo non è la stessa cosa che indipendente.
Fonte
PubMed 34225102 · doi 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2021.06.904
La spiegazione in linguaggio semplice di questo studio è ancora in corso di redazione. Di seguito è riportato l'abstract esattamente come pubblicato dai ricercatori.
Abstract dei ricercatori — testo originale

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Estimated cardiorespiratory fitness (eCRF) derived from algorithm correlates well with exercise testing-measured CRF, yet its clinical use for mortality risk stratification has not been systematically evaluated. This meta-analysis with dose-response analysis was conducted to quantify its association with risk of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for prospective cohort studies that investigated the association of eCRF with risk of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. Study-specific multivariate-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) per 1-metabolic equivalent (MET) higher of eCRF were pooled using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Twenty-five datasets from 8 cohort studies that enrolled more than 170,000 participants were included. The summary HR per 1-MET higher of eCRF was 0.83 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.86) for cardiovascular mortality (11 datasets) and 0.83 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.88) for all-cause mortality (14 datasets) in the general population. These associations showed no sex-difference and were all linearly shaped (all p nonlinearity ≥ 0.27). The performance of eCRF (assessed by the area under the curve) in discriminating future risk of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality was higher than all its components (such as physical activity, resting heart rate, and body mass index, all p < 0.05), but slightly lower than exercise testing-measured CRF. CONCLUSIONS: Higher eCRF was independently associated with lower risk of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality in the general population, indicating that eCRF might hold the potential as an effective and practical risk prediction tool in epidemiological or population research.