Preventive medicine
-
Preventive medicine · May 2004
Meta AnalysisA meta-analysis of alcohol consumption and the risk of 15 diseases.
To compare the strength of evidence provided by the epidemiological literature on the association between alcohol consumption and the risk of 14 major alcohol-related neoplasms and non-neoplastic diseases, plus injuries. ⋯ This meta-analysis shows no evidence of a threshold effect for both neoplasms and several non-neoplastic diseases. J-shaped relations were observed only for coronary heart disease.
-
Preventive medicine · Feb 1999
Meta Analysis Comparative StudyComparison of risk estimates for selected diseases and causes of death.
Lifetime risk estimates of disease are limited by long-term data extrapolations and are less relevant to individuals who have already lived a period of time without the disease, but are approaching the age at which the disease risk becomes common. In contrast, short-term age-conditional risk estimates, such as the risk of developing a disease in the next 10 years among those alive and free of the disease at a given age, are less restricted by long-term extrapolation of current rates and can present patients with risk information tailored to their age. This study focuses on short-term age-conditional risk estimates for a broad set of important chronic diseases and nondisease causes of death among white and black men and women. ⋯ Presentation of risk estimates for a broad set of chronic diseases and nondisease causes of death within short-term age ranges among population subgroups provides tailored information that may lead to better educated prevention, screening, and control behaviors and more efficient allocation of health resources.
-
Preventive medicine · Jan 1991
Meta AnalysisEstrogen replacement therapy and coronary heart disease: a quantitative assessment of the epidemiologic evidence.
Considerable epidemiological evidence has accumulated regarding the effect of postmenopausal estrogens on coronary heart disease risk. Five hospital-based case-control studies yielded inconsistent but generally null results; however, these are difficult to interpret due to the problems in selecting appropriate controls. Six population-based case-control studies found decreased relative risks among estrogen users, though only 1 was statistically significant. ⋯ Overall, the bulk of the evidence strongly supports a protective effect of estrogens that is unlikely to be explained by confounding factors. This benefit is consistent with the effect of estrogens on lipoprotein subfractions (decreasing low-density lipoprotein levels and elevating high-density lipoprotein levels). A quantitative overview of all studies taken together yielded a relative risk of 0.56 (95% confidence interval 0.50-0.61), and taking only the internally controlled prospective and angiographic studies, the relative risk was 0.50 (95% confidence interval 0.43-0.56).