Living alone and all-cause mortality in community-dwelling adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 9.6 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL EClinicalMedicine Pub Date : 2022-09-29 eCollection Date: 2022-12-01 DOI:10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101677
Yunli Zhao, Gordon Guyatt, Ya Gao, Qiukui Hao, Ream Abdullah, John Basmaji, Farid Foroutan
{"title":"Living alone and all-cause mortality in community-dwelling adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Yunli Zhao, Gordon Guyatt, Ya Gao, Qiukui Hao, Ream Abdullah, John Basmaji, Farid Foroutan","doi":"10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101677","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The non-causal and causal associations, possible age and sex differences between living alone and all-cause mortality among adults were unclear. We aimed to assess the association and causal relation between living alone and all-cause mortality among community-dwelling adults, addressing the certainty of evidence, possible age and sex differences.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched Medline, Embase, and APA PsycINFO for cohort studies examining the association between living alone and all-cause mortality on November 19, 2021. We used the GRADE approach to assess certainty of evidence, and the Instrument for the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses (ICEMAN) to evaluate credibility of subgroup inferences and conducted a meta-analysis of measures of association between living alone and mortality. The study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021290895.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>18 cohort studies with 62,174 adults proved eligible. Living alone was associated with mortality (relative risk (RR) = 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08-1.23). Both age and sex modified the association (high and moderate credibility, separately). Living alone increased the risk of dying only in younger but not older individuals (ratio of RRs = 1.59, interaction <i>P</i> = 0.003; younger RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.17-1.71, high certainty for prognosis, low for causation; older RR = 1.05, 95% CI 0.91-1.22, moderate certainty for prognosis, very low for causation). Living alone increased risk to a greater extent in males than females (ratio of RRs = 1.39, 95% CI 1.14-1.70; interaction <i>P</i> = 0.001, males RR = 1.41, 95% CI 1.17-1.71, high certainty for prognosis, low for causation; females RR = 1.15, 95% CI 0.99-1.33; moderate for prognosis factor, very low for causation).</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>Living alone is associated with increased mortality in individuals under 65 years (high certainty) but not with those over 75 years; the association may be causal (low certainty). Associations, and possibly effects, may be stronger in men than women.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>None.</p>","PeriodicalId":11393,"journal":{"name":"EClinicalMedicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/71/b5/main.PMC9530481.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EClinicalMedicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101677","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/12/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The non-causal and causal associations, possible age and sex differences between living alone and all-cause mortality among adults were unclear. We aimed to assess the association and causal relation between living alone and all-cause mortality among community-dwelling adults, addressing the certainty of evidence, possible age and sex differences.

Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, and APA PsycINFO for cohort studies examining the association between living alone and all-cause mortality on November 19, 2021. We used the GRADE approach to assess certainty of evidence, and the Instrument for the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses (ICEMAN) to evaluate credibility of subgroup inferences and conducted a meta-analysis of measures of association between living alone and mortality. The study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021290895.

Findings: 18 cohort studies with 62,174 adults proved eligible. Living alone was associated with mortality (relative risk (RR) = 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08-1.23). Both age and sex modified the association (high and moderate credibility, separately). Living alone increased the risk of dying only in younger but not older individuals (ratio of RRs = 1.59, interaction P = 0.003; younger RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.17-1.71, high certainty for prognosis, low for causation; older RR = 1.05, 95% CI 0.91-1.22, moderate certainty for prognosis, very low for causation). Living alone increased risk to a greater extent in males than females (ratio of RRs = 1.39, 95% CI 1.14-1.70; interaction P = 0.001, males RR = 1.41, 95% CI 1.17-1.71, high certainty for prognosis, low for causation; females RR = 1.15, 95% CI 0.99-1.33; moderate for prognosis factor, very low for causation).

Interpretation: Living alone is associated with increased mortality in individuals under 65 years (high certainty) but not with those over 75 years; the association may be causal (low certainty). Associations, and possibly effects, may be stronger in men than women.

Funding: None.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
独居与社区居住成年人的全因死亡率:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:独居与成人全因死亡率之间的非因果关系、可能存在的年龄和性别差异尚不明确。我们旨在评估独居与社区成年人全因死亡率之间的关联和因果关系,解决证据的确定性、可能的年龄和性别差异等问题:我们检索了 Medline、Embase 和 APA PsycINFO 中截至 2021 年 11 月 19 日有关独居与全因死亡率相关性的队列研究。我们使用 GRADE 方法评估证据的确定性,并使用效应修正分析可信度工具(ICEMAN)评估亚组推论的可信度,并对独居与死亡率之间的关联进行了荟萃分析。该研究已在 PROSPERO 注册,编号为 CRD42021290895:结果:18 项队列研究中的 62 174 名成年人符合条件。独居与死亡率有关(相对风险 (RR) = 1.15,95% 置信区间 (CI) 1.08-1.23)。年龄和性别都会改变这种关联(分别具有高度和中度可信度)。独居只会增加年轻人的死亡风险,而不会增加老年人的死亡风险(RRs 之比 = 1.59,交互作用 P = 0.003;年轻人 RR 1.41,95% CI 1.17-1.71,预后确定性高,因果关系可信度低;老年人 RR = 1.05,95% CI 0.91-1.22,预后确定性中等,因果关系可信度极低)。与女性相比,男性独居增加的风险更大(RRs 之比 = 1.39,95% CI 1.14-1.70;交互 P = 0.001,男性 RR = 1.41,95% CI 1.17-1.71,预后确定性高,因果关系低;女性 RR = 1.15,95% CI 0.99-1.33;预后因素中等,因果关系极低):独居与 65 岁以下人群死亡率增加有关(高度确定性),但与 75 岁以上人群无关;这种关联可能是因果关系(低度确定性)。男性的相关性可能比女性更强,影响也可能更大:无。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
EClinicalMedicine
EClinicalMedicine Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
18.90
自引率
1.30%
发文量
506
审稿时长
22 days
期刊介绍: eClinicalMedicine is a gold open-access clinical journal designed to support frontline health professionals in addressing the complex and rapid health transitions affecting societies globally. The journal aims to assist practitioners in overcoming healthcare challenges across diverse communities, spanning diagnosis, treatment, prevention, and health promotion. Integrating disciplines from various specialties and life stages, it seeks to enhance health systems as fundamental institutions within societies. With a forward-thinking approach, eClinicalMedicine aims to redefine the future of healthcare.
期刊最新文献
Changes in memory and cognition during the SARS-CoV-2 human challenge study. Effect of automated insulin delivery systems on person-reported outcomes in people with diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy for initially unresectable locally advanced colon cancer: short-term outcomes of an open-label, single-centre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Comparative efficacy, safety and benefit/risk of alerting agents for excessive daytime sleepiness in patients with obstructive sleep apnoea: a network meta-analysis. Multi-center external validation of an automated method segmenting and differentiating atypical lipomatous tumors from lipomas using radiomics and deep-learning on MRI.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1