International journal of cardiology · 2001
Meta-analyses of prospective studies on coronary heart disease, type A personality, and hostility.
СтатьяМетаанализПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Myrtek M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Several large-scale prospective studies have failed to find an association between Type A personality (TAP) or hostility and coronary heart disease (CHD). The existing meta-analyses on this topic have several shortcomings, such as a selective search of the literature, the failed use of effect sizes, and methodological flaws.
METHODS: The present meta-analyses cover all prospective studies until the end of 1998. The correlation coefficient r is used as effect size to yield information on the population effect size R and variance. Several analyses have been carried out to stratify for disease endpoints, samples (healthy population, CHD patients), and methods used to determine TAP or hostility.
RESULTS: The population effect size (weighted average of all correlation coefficients) for TAP and CHD is R=0.003 (n=74,326, P=0.213), and for hostility and CHD R=0.022 (n=15,038, P=0.003).
CONCLUSIONS: The population effect size for TAP and CHD is not significant. Hostility yields a significant association with CHD; however, the effect size is so low that it has as yet no practical meaning for prediction and prevention.
METHODS: The present meta-analyses cover all prospective studies until the end of 1998. The correlation coefficient r is used as effect size to yield information on the population effect size R and variance. Several analyses have been carried out to stratify for disease endpoints, samples (healthy population, CHD patients), and methods used to determine TAP or hostility.
RESULTS: The population effect size (weighted average of all correlation coefficients) for TAP and CHD is R=0.003 (n=74,326, P=0.213), and for hostility and CHD R=0.022 (n=15,038, P=0.003).
CONCLUSIONS: The population effect size for TAP and CHD is not significant. Hostility yields a significant association with CHD; however, the effect size is so low that it has as yet no practical meaning for prediction and prevention.