蛛网膜下腔出血的可改变风险因素:以常见争议和流行病学陷阱为重点的叙述性综述。

IF 7.7 1区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Neurology Pub Date : 2024-12-10 Epub Date: 2024-11-18 DOI:10.1212/WNL.0000000000210052
Ilari Matias Rautalin, Aleksanteri Asikainen, Miikka Korja
{"title":"蛛网膜下腔出血的可改变风险因素:以常见争议和流行病学陷阱为重点的叙述性综述。","authors":"Ilari Matias Rautalin, Aleksanteri Asikainen, Miikka Korja","doi":"10.1212/WNL.0000000000210052","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Given the relatively low incidence, high prehospital death rate, substantial geographical differences, and complex disease origin (combination of genetic and environmental risk factors), epidemiologic research on subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) and its risk factors is challenging. In practice, we are more or less forced to exploit compromised study designs and nonrepresentative data in such circumstances where it is almost impossible to gather comprehensive data through an optimal design. For example, hospital-based patient cohorts, administrative data repositories, and short-term population-based studies from small geographical regions are often used to research the incidence, case fatality, and risk factors of SAH, regardless of their inherent and self-evident limitations. Since studies on the epidemiology of SAH focus largely on identifying possible risk factors that could aid in disease diagnostics, treatment, and prevention, we aimed to review recent evidence on modifiable risk factors for SAH. In this context, we also try to explain the methodological reasons behind some of the conflicting results and to discuss the primary strengths and limitations of different study designs used in the field of SAH epidemiology. Based on our findings, smoking, high blood pressure, and possibly low physical activity are the only risk factors with high-quality evidence supporting their causal role in SAH. In addition, since all 3 commonly used study designs in SAH epidemiology, namely, hospital-based, population-based, and administrative register-based studies, have their own strengths and limitations, the most robust risk factor estimates and other epidemiologic measures of SAH can likely be established by combining various overlapping and high-quality sources of information in the future.</p>","PeriodicalId":19256,"journal":{"name":"Neurology","volume":"103 11","pages":"e210052"},"PeriodicalIF":7.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Modifiable Risk Factors for Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: Narrative Review With an Emphasis on Common Controversies and Epidemiologic Pitfalls.\",\"authors\":\"Ilari Matias Rautalin, Aleksanteri Asikainen, Miikka Korja\",\"doi\":\"10.1212/WNL.0000000000210052\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Given the relatively low incidence, high prehospital death rate, substantial geographical differences, and complex disease origin (combination of genetic and environmental risk factors), epidemiologic research on subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) and its risk factors is challenging. In practice, we are more or less forced to exploit compromised study designs and nonrepresentative data in such circumstances where it is almost impossible to gather comprehensive data through an optimal design. For example, hospital-based patient cohorts, administrative data repositories, and short-term population-based studies from small geographical regions are often used to research the incidence, case fatality, and risk factors of SAH, regardless of their inherent and self-evident limitations. Since studies on the epidemiology of SAH focus largely on identifying possible risk factors that could aid in disease diagnostics, treatment, and prevention, we aimed to review recent evidence on modifiable risk factors for SAH. In this context, we also try to explain the methodological reasons behind some of the conflicting results and to discuss the primary strengths and limitations of different study designs used in the field of SAH epidemiology. Based on our findings, smoking, high blood pressure, and possibly low physical activity are the only risk factors with high-quality evidence supporting their causal role in SAH. In addition, since all 3 commonly used study designs in SAH epidemiology, namely, hospital-based, population-based, and administrative register-based studies, have their own strengths and limitations, the most robust risk factor estimates and other epidemiologic measures of SAH can likely be established by combining various overlapping and high-quality sources of information in the future.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19256,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neurology\",\"volume\":\"103 11\",\"pages\":\"e210052\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neurology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000210052\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/11/18 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000210052","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

由于蛛网膜下腔出血(SAH)的发病率相对较低、院前死亡率高、地域差异大、病因复杂(遗传和环境风险因素相结合),因此对其及其风险因素的流行病学研究极具挑战性。实际上,在这种情况下,我们或多或少不得不利用受损的研究设计和不具代表性的数据,在这种情况下,几乎不可能通过最佳设计来收集全面的数据。例如,以医院为基础的患者队列、行政数据储存库以及小范围地区的短期人群研究常常被用来研究 SAH 的发病率、病死率和风险因素,而不顾其固有的、不言而喻的局限性。由于有关 SAH 流行病学的研究主要集中在确定可能的风险因素,以帮助疾病的诊断、治疗和预防,因此我们旨在回顾有关 SAH 可改变风险因素的最新证据。在此背景下,我们还试图解释一些相互矛盾的结果背后的方法学原因,并讨论 SAH 流行病学领域所使用的不同研究设计的主要优势和局限性。根据我们的研究结果,吸烟、高血压以及可能的低体力活动是唯一有高质量证据支持其在 SAH 中的因果作用的风险因素。此外,由于SAH流行病学中常用的三种研究设计,即基于医院、基于人群和基于行政登记的研究,都有各自的优势和局限性,因此,未来有可能通过将各种重叠的高质量信息来源结合起来,建立最可靠的SAH风险因素估计和其他流行病学测量方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Modifiable Risk Factors for Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: Narrative Review With an Emphasis on Common Controversies and Epidemiologic Pitfalls.

Given the relatively low incidence, high prehospital death rate, substantial geographical differences, and complex disease origin (combination of genetic and environmental risk factors), epidemiologic research on subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) and its risk factors is challenging. In practice, we are more or less forced to exploit compromised study designs and nonrepresentative data in such circumstances where it is almost impossible to gather comprehensive data through an optimal design. For example, hospital-based patient cohorts, administrative data repositories, and short-term population-based studies from small geographical regions are often used to research the incidence, case fatality, and risk factors of SAH, regardless of their inherent and self-evident limitations. Since studies on the epidemiology of SAH focus largely on identifying possible risk factors that could aid in disease diagnostics, treatment, and prevention, we aimed to review recent evidence on modifiable risk factors for SAH. In this context, we also try to explain the methodological reasons behind some of the conflicting results and to discuss the primary strengths and limitations of different study designs used in the field of SAH epidemiology. Based on our findings, smoking, high blood pressure, and possibly low physical activity are the only risk factors with high-quality evidence supporting their causal role in SAH. In addition, since all 3 commonly used study designs in SAH epidemiology, namely, hospital-based, population-based, and administrative register-based studies, have their own strengths and limitations, the most robust risk factor estimates and other epidemiologic measures of SAH can likely be established by combining various overlapping and high-quality sources of information in the future.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Neurology
Neurology 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
12.20
自引率
4.00%
发文量
1973
审稿时长
2-3 weeks
期刊介绍: Neurology, the official journal of the American Academy of Neurology, aspires to be the premier peer-reviewed journal for clinical neurology research. Its mission is to publish exceptional peer-reviewed original research articles, editorials, and reviews to improve patient care, education, clinical research, and professionalism in neurology. As the leading clinical neurology journal worldwide, Neurology targets physicians specializing in nervous system diseases and conditions. It aims to advance the field by presenting new basic and clinical research that influences neurological practice. The journal is a leading source of cutting-edge, peer-reviewed information for the neurology community worldwide. Editorial content includes Research, Clinical/Scientific Notes, Views, Historical Neurology, NeuroImages, Humanities, Letters, and position papers from the American Academy of Neurology. The online version is considered the definitive version, encompassing all available content. Neurology is indexed in prestigious databases such as MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Biological Abstracts®, PsycINFO®, Current Contents®, Web of Science®, CrossRef, and Google Scholar.
期刊最新文献
Clinical Reasoning: A 65-Year-Old Woman With Isolated Macroglossia as the Initial Presentation of a Rare Disease. Eculizumab in AQP4-IgG NMOSD: Efficacy in the Real World and Potential Warning of Meningococcal Vaccines. Moving Things Along: A New Model for the NINDS Clinical Neurotherapeutic Pipeline. Prevalence of Progression Independent of Relapse Activity and Relapse-Associated Worsening in Patients With AQP4-IgG-Positive NMOSD. Teaching NeuroImage: Occipital Condyle Syndrome.
×
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