Association of styloid process length with cervical carotid artery dissection: Meta-analysis

Loay H Abdelnour , Mohammed Kurdy , Abubakr Idris
{"title":"Association of styloid process length with cervical carotid artery dissection: Meta-analysis","authors":"Loay H Abdelnour ,&nbsp;Mohammed Kurdy ,&nbsp;Abubakr Idris","doi":"10.1016/j.hsr.2023.100134","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the association of elongated styloid process (Eagle syndrome) and cervical artery dissection (CeAD), particularly carotid. Medline, PubMed Central, CINAHL and ProQuest were searched for case-control studies investigating the association of styloid process length (SPL) and CeAD, particularly carotid. SPL was treated as a continuous variable and mean difference was calculated from means and standard deviations with 95 % confidence interval (CI). SPL &gt;30 mm was compared between cases and controls as a dichotomous variable and odds ratio (OR) was calculated with 95 % CI. Heterogeneity was quantified with χ2-based Cochran's Q-test and I<sup>2</sup>-statistic. Four studies were included comparing 185 dissection cases with 278 controls. Heterogeneity was 50 %, but was reduced to 0 % with sensitivity analysis. Styloid process was significantly longer in dissection group with a mean difference of 2.50 [-0.35, 5.35], <em>P</em> = 0.09. Elimination of one study with high risk of bias resulted in a mean difference of 3.61 [1.47, 5.75], <em>P</em> = 0.0009, and a heterogeneity of 0 %. Two studies showed SPL &gt;30 mm to be more significant in dissection group (OR = 1.53 [0.84,2.80], <em>P</em> = 0.17). With sensitivity analysis the pooled OR was 2.09 [1.04, 4.19], <em>P</em> = 0.04. Three studies showed that mean SPL was significantly longer ipsilateral compared to contralateral side of dissection (mean difference 2.63 [0.46, 4.79], <em>P</em> = 0.02. This meta-analysis suggests that CeAD is significantly associated with styloid process mean length and SPL &gt;30 mm. Case-control studies with bigger numbers are required to substantiate this association.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":73214,"journal":{"name":"Health sciences review (Oxford, England)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772632023000600/pdfft?md5=a5552dd47a0e300b4fce7d21bdd8cddd&pid=1-s2.0-S2772632023000600-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health sciences review (Oxford, England)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772632023000600","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the association of elongated styloid process (Eagle syndrome) and cervical artery dissection (CeAD), particularly carotid. Medline, PubMed Central, CINAHL and ProQuest were searched for case-control studies investigating the association of styloid process length (SPL) and CeAD, particularly carotid. SPL was treated as a continuous variable and mean difference was calculated from means and standard deviations with 95 % confidence interval (CI). SPL >30 mm was compared between cases and controls as a dichotomous variable and odds ratio (OR) was calculated with 95 % CI. Heterogeneity was quantified with χ2-based Cochran's Q-test and I2-statistic. Four studies were included comparing 185 dissection cases with 278 controls. Heterogeneity was 50 %, but was reduced to 0 % with sensitivity analysis. Styloid process was significantly longer in dissection group with a mean difference of 2.50 [-0.35, 5.35], P = 0.09. Elimination of one study with high risk of bias resulted in a mean difference of 3.61 [1.47, 5.75], P = 0.0009, and a heterogeneity of 0 %. Two studies showed SPL >30 mm to be more significant in dissection group (OR = 1.53 [0.84,2.80], P = 0.17). With sensitivity analysis the pooled OR was 2.09 [1.04, 4.19], P = 0.04. Three studies showed that mean SPL was significantly longer ipsilateral compared to contralateral side of dissection (mean difference 2.63 [0.46, 4.79], P = 0.02. This meta-analysis suggests that CeAD is significantly associated with styloid process mean length and SPL >30 mm. Case-control studies with bigger numbers are required to substantiate this association.

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
茎突长度与颈动脉夹层的关系:meta分析
本荟萃分析旨在研究茎突延长(Eagle综合征)与颈动脉夹层(CeAD),特别是颈动脉夹层的关系。我们检索了Medline、PubMed Central、CINAHL和ProQuest的病例对照研究,以调查茎突突长度(SPL)与头颈部病变(尤其是颈动脉)之间的关系。SPL被视为连续变量,并以95%置信区间(CI)的均值和标准差计算平均差。SPL >30 mm作为二分变量在病例和对照组之间进行比较,并以95% CI计算优势比(OR)。采用基于χ2的Cochran’s q检验和i2统计量对异质性进行量化。纳入4项研究,比较185例夹层病例和278例对照。异质性为50%,但通过敏感性分析降低到0%。夹层组茎突明显延长,平均差异为2.50 [-0.35,5.35],P = 0.09。排除一项高偏倚风险的研究,平均差异为3.61 [1.47,5.75],P = 0.0009,异质性为0%。两项研究显示夹层组SPL >30 mm更为显著(OR = 1.53 [0.84,2.80], P = 0.17)。经敏感性分析,合并OR为2.09 [1.04,4.19],P = 0.04。3项研究显示,同侧夹层的平均SPL明显长于对侧夹层(平均差异为2.63 [0.46,4.79],P = 0.02)。该荟萃分析表明,CeAD与茎突平均长度和SPL (30mm)显著相关。需要更大数量的病例对照研究来证实这种关联。
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
Health sciences review (Oxford, England)
Health sciences review (Oxford, England) Medicine and Dentistry (General)
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
75 days
期刊最新文献
Deciphering the intricacies of immune system dysfunction and its impact on diabetes mellitus: Revisiting the communication strategies to manage diabetes mellitus Revolutionizing menopause management: Nonhormonal therapy for vasomotor symptoms Harnessing the power of natural products against bacterial urinary tract infections: A perspective review for cultivating solutions Unveiling the therapeutic potential of butein: A comprehensive review Advancements in ulcerative colitis management: A critical assessment of etrasimod therapy
×
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