Cited by 72Cardiovascular Health and Risk FactorsMenopause: Health Impacts and TreatmentsCancer Risks and Factors

Parity and Cardiovascular Disease Mortality: a Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies

Open access
Lv, Haichen, Wu, Hongyi, Yin, Jiasheng, Qian, Juying, Ge, Junbo·2015·Scientific Reports

Abstract

Parity has been shown to inversely associate with cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality, but the evidence of epidemiological studies is still controversial. Therefore, we quantitatively assessed the relationship between parity and CVD mortality by summarizing the evidence from prospective studies. We searched MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE and ISI Web of Science databases for relevant prospective studies of parity and CVD mortality through the end of March 2015. Fixed- or random-effects models were used to estimate summary relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity among studies was assessed using the I2 statistics. All statistical tests were two-sided. Ten prospective studies were included with a total of 994,810 participants and 16,601 CVD events. A borderline significant inverse association was observed while comparing parity with nulliparous, with summarized RR = 0.79 (95% CI: 0.60–1.06; I2 = 90.9%, P < 0.001). In dose-response analysis, we observed a significant nonlinear association between parity number and CVD mortality. The greatest risk reduction appeared when the parity number reached four. The findings of this meta-analysis suggests that ever parity is inversely related to CVD mortality. Furthermore, there is a statistically significant nonlinear inverse association between parity number and CVD mortality.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/srep13411

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lv, H., Wu, H., Yin, J., Qian, J., & Ge, J.
Affiliations
Fudan University (CN)
Corresponding author
Ge, Junbo
Venue
Scientific Reports
Published
2015-08-24
Volume
5
Issue
1
Pages
13411-13411
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2436855732
Cited by
72
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2
FWCI
0.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Natural Science Foundation of China (81300152)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiovascular Health and Risk Factors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Menopause: Health Impacts and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer Risks and Factors
Keywords
parity, cardiovascular mortality, nulliparity, dose-response relationship, nonlinear relationship, maternal reproductive history, cardiovascular risk
MeSH terms
Adult, Cardiovascular Diseases, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Parity, Pregnancy, Risk Factors, Cohort Studies, Parturition, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review