Version 3 2024-06-18, 21:39Version 3 2024-06-18, 21:39
Version 2 2024-06-05, 08:59Version 2 2024-06-05, 08:59
Version 1 2020-07-10, 15:37Version 1 2020-07-10, 15:37
journal contribution
posted on 2024-06-18, 21:39authored byAJ Rodríguez, K Leow, P Szulc, David ScottDavid Scott, P Ebeling, M Sim, G Wong, WH Lim, JT Schousboe, DP Kiel, RL Prince, JR Lewis
Introduction: Abdominal aortic calcification (AAC) is associated with low bone mass and increased fracture risk. Two previous meta-Analyses have investigated the association between AAC and fracture. However, these meta-Analyses only identified articles until December 2016, undertook limited searches and did not explore potential sources of between-study heterogeneity. We aim to undertake a sensitive and comprehensive assessment of the relationship between AAC, bone mineral density (BMD) as well as prevalent and incident fractures.
Methods: We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science core collection and Google Scholar (top 200 articles sorted by relevance) from their inception to 1 June 2018. Reference lists of included studies and previous systematic reviews will be hand searched for additional eligible studies. Retrospective and prospective cohort studies (cross-sectional, case-control and longitudinal) reporting the association between AAC, BMD and fracture at any site will be included. At least two investigators will independently: (A) evaluate study eligibility and extract data, with a third investigator to adjudicate when discrepancies occur, (B) assess study quality by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for each cohort/study. The meta-Analysis will be reported in adherence to the Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology criteria. AAC will be grouped as either: (1) AAC present or absent, (2) AAC categorised as â € low' (referent-lowest reported group) versus â € high' (all other groups) or (3) dose-response when AAC was assessed in ≥3 groups. Where primary event data were reported in individual studies, pooled risk differences and risk ratios with 95% CI will be calculated, from which, a summary estimate will be determined using DerSimonian-Laird random effects models. For the AAC and BMD pooled analyses, estimates will be expressed as standardised mean difference with 95% CI. We will examine the likelihood of publication bias and where possible, investigate potential reasons for between-study heterogeneity using subgroup analyses and meta-regression.
Ethics and dissemination: The study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and disseminated via research presentations.
PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018088019.