Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 347

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Prediction of Incident Stroke Events Based on Retinal Vessel Caliber: A Systematic Review and Individual-Participant Meta-Analysis

Open access
McGeechan, K., Liew, G., Macaskill, P., Irwig, L., Klein, R., Klein, B. E. K., Wang, J. J., Mitchell, P., Vingerling, J. R., de Jong, P. T. V. M., Witteman, J. C. M., Breteler, M. M. B., Shaw, J., Zimmet, P., Wong, T. Y.·2009·American Journal of Epidemiology

Abstract

The caliber of the retinal vessels has been shown to be associated with stroke events. However, the consistency and magnitude of association, and the changes in predicted risk independent of traditional risk factors, are unclear. To determine the association between retinal vessel caliber and the risk of stroke events, the investigators combined individual data from 20,798 people, who were free of stroke at baseline, in 6 cohort studies identified from a search of the Medline (National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, Maryland) and EMBASE (Elsevier B.V., Amsterdam, the Netherlands) databases. During follow-up of 5-12 years, 945 (4.5%) incident stroke events were recorded. Wider retinal venular caliber predicted stroke (pooled hazard ratio = 1.15, 95% confidence interval: 1.05, 1.25 per 20-micron increase in caliber), but the caliber of retinal arterioles was not associated with stroke (pooled hazard ratio = 1.00, 95% confidence interval: 0.92, 1.08). There was weak evidence of heterogeneity in the hazard ratio for retinal venular caliber, which may be attributable to differences in follow-up strategies across studies. Inclusion of retinal venular caliber in prediction models containing traditional stroke risk factors reassigned 10.1% of people at intermediate risk into different, mostly lower, risk categories.

Overview

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 · 10.1093/aje/kwp306

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 347

Metadata

Authors
McGeechan, K., Liew, G., Macaskill, P., Irwig, L., Klein, R., Klein, B. E. K., Wang, J. J., Mitchell, P., Vingerling, J. R., de Jong, P. T. V. M., Witteman, J. C. M., Breteler, M. M. B., Shaw, J., Zimmet, P., & Wong, T. Y.
Venue
American Journal of Epidemiology
Published
2009-11-01
Volume
170
Issue
11
Pages
1323-1332
ISSN
  • 0002-9262 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-6256
OpenAlex
W2138530279
Cited by
347
References
4
FWCI
1.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Prediction of Incident Stroke Events Based on Retinal Vessel Caliber: A Systematic Review and Individual-Participant Meta-Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/aje/kwp306
The paper
McGeechan, K., Liew, G., Macaskill, P., Irwig, L., Klein, R., Klein, B. E. K., Wang, J. J., Mitchell, P., Vingerling, J. R., de Jong, P. T. V. M., Witteman, J. C. M., Breteler, M. M. B., Shaw, J., Zimmet, P., & Wong, T. Y. (2009). Prediction of Incident Stroke Events Based on Retinal Vessel Caliber: A Systematic Review and Individual-Participant Meta-Analysis. American Journal of Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwp306

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.