Lanzamiento Enero 2027

Metaanálisis2017Financiación no declarada

A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Prospective Cohort Studies of Eicosapentaenoic and Docosahexaenoic Long-Chain Omega-3 Fatty Acids and Coronary Heart Disease Risk

Alexander DD, Miller PE, Van Elswyk ME, Kuratko CN, Bylsma LC

Mayo Clinic proceedings · 160 citas

Etiquetas de revisión

Financiación no declarada

Datos neutrales que nuestra revisión registró sobre cómo se hizo este estudio. Describen el método, nunca si nos gusta el resultado.

Cómo se estudió

Diseño
Metaanálisis (indexado por PubMed)
Estudiado en
Personas
Resultado principal
Eventos clínicos como enfermedad o muerte

Quién lo pagó

Financiación
Financiación no declarada

Publicación

Publicado
2017-01-01 · Mayo Clin Proc · vol. 92 · número 1 · págs. 15–29
Editorial
Elsevier BV
Citado
251 citas · más que el 99% de estudios similares · 3.5× el promedio de su campo
Impacto
Entre el 10 % más citado de su campo
Referencias
85 trabajos
Acceso
Acceso abierto (revista híbrida) · CC-BY-NC-ND
Áreas de investigación
Fatty Acid Research and Health · Natural Products and Biological Research · Eicosanoids and Hypertension Pharmacology
Palabras clave
Medicine, Docosahexaenoic acid, Eicosapentaenoic acid, Randomized controlled trial, Coronary heart disease, Meta-analysis, Internal medicine, Cohort study, Prospective cohort study, Disease, Polyunsaturated fatty acid, Fatty acid, Biochemistry
MeSH
humans, coronary disease, docosahexaenoic acids, eicosapentaenoic acid, proportional hazards models, risk assessment, prospective studies, randomized controlled trials as topic

5 autores

  • Dominik D. Alexander🇺🇸 · autor de correspondenciaMichigan United
  • Paige Elizabeth Miller🇺🇸Edward Hines, Jr. VA Hospital
  • Mary E. Van Elswyk
  • Connye N. Kuratko
  • Lauren C. Bylsma🇺🇸Michigan United

Resumen

El texto original del estudio, en el idioma en que se publicó.

Objective

To conduct meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to estimate the effect of eicosapentaenoic and docosahexaenoic acid (EPA+DHA) on coronary heart disease (CHD), and to conduct meta-analyses of prospective cohort studies to estimate the association between EPA+DHA intake and CHD risk.

Methods

A systematic literature search of Ovid/Medline, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from January 1, 1947, to November 2, 2015, was conducted; 18 RCTs and 16 prospective cohort studies examining EPA+DHA from foods or supplements and CHD, including myocardial infarction, sudden cardiac death, coronary death, and angina, were identified. Random-effects meta-analysis models were used to generate summary relative risk estimates (SRREs) and 95% CIs. Heterogeneity was examined in subgroup and sensitivity analyses and by meta-regression. Dose-response was evaluated in stratified dose or intake analyses. Publication bias assessments were performed.

Results

Among RCTs, there was a nonstatistically significant reduction in CHD risk with EPA+DHA provision (SRRE=0.94; 95% CI, 0.85-1.05). Subgroup analyses of data from RCTs indicated a statistically significant CHD risk reduction with EPA+DHA provision among higher-risk populations, including participants with elevated triglyceride levels (SRRE=0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.98) and elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (SRRE=0.86; 95% CI, 0.76-0.98). Meta-analysis of data from prospective cohort studies resulted in a statistically significant SRRE of 0.82 (95% CI, 0.74-0.92) for higher intakes of EPA+DHA and risk of any CHD event.

Conclusion

Results indicate that EPA+DHA may be associated with reducing CHD risk, with a greater benefit observed among higher-risk populations in RCTs.

Resumen vía Europe PMC. Los derechos de autor siguen siendo de los autores o la editorial (CC BY-NC-ND).

Confianza de la comunidad

Cargando…

¿Cuánto confías en los hallazgos de este estudio?

0 · nada10 · totalmente

Comentarios

¿Algo está mal aquí?

Señala este estudio si su información, etiquetas o financiación parecen incorrectas. Un editor revisa cada señalamiento.

Información educativa sobre investigación publicada. No es consejo médico ni una recomendación para empezar o dejar nada.