BACKGROUND How mild-to-moderate hypertriglyceridemia (2–10 mmol/L; 177–886 mg/dL) potentially causes acute pancreatitis is unknown; however, cellular studies indicate that inflammation might be a driver of disease progression. We tested the hypotheses that (a) mild-to-moderate hypertriglyceridemia is associated with low-grade inflammation and that (b) the association between mild-to-moderate hypertriglyceridemia and risk of acute pancreatitis depends on low-grade inflammation. METHODS From the Copenhagen General Population Study and the Copenhagen City Heart Study, 117865 men and women 20–100+ years of age with measurements of nonfasting plasma triglycerides at baseline were followed prospectively for development of acute pancreatitis. RESULTS After multivariable adjustment, a 1 mmol/L (89 mg/dL) higher nonfasting triglyceride concentration was associated with 17% (95% CI, 16%–18%, P = 3 × 10−17) higher plasma C-reactive protein (CRP) and a 4.2% (4.0%–4.4%, P = 6 × 10−17) higher blood leukocyte count. Higher concentrations of nonfasting triglycerides were associated almost linearly with higher risk of acute pancreatitis (P for trend = 5 × 10−6), with hazard ratios of 1.5 (95% CI, 0.9–2.5), 2.0 (95% CI, 1.1–3.6), 2.2 (95% CI, 1.0–4.7), 4.2 (95% CI, 1.6–11.5), and 7.7 (95% CI, 3.0–19.8) in individuals with nonfasting triglycerides of 1.00–1.99 mmol/L (89–176 mg/dL; 46% of the population), 2.00–2.99 mmol/L (177–265 mg/dL; 17%), 3.00–3.99 mmol/L (266–353 mg/dL; 6%), 4.00–4.99 mmol/L (354–442 mg/dL; 2%), and ≥5mmol/L(443 mg/dL; 2%), respectively, vs individuals with <1 mmol/L (89 mg/dL; 27%). The association with risk of acute pancreatitis appeared more pronounced in individuals with CRP of ≥1.39 mg/L (P for trend = 0.001) and leukocytes of ≥7 × 109/L (P = 2 × 10−4) than in those with CRP <1.39 mg/L (P = 0.03) and leukocytes <7 × 109/L (P = 0.04); however, there was no formal evidence of statistical interaction (P = 0.38 for CRP and P = 0.41 for leukocytes). CONCLUSIONS Mild-to-moderate hypertriglyceridemia is associated with low-grade inflammation and higher risk of acute pancreatitis. The association between mild-to-moderate hypertriglyceridemia and risk of acute pancreatitis is possibly partly mediated by low-grade inflammation.
BackgroundSystematic reviews with meta-analyses often contain many statistical tests. This multiplicity may increase the risk of type I error. Few attempts have been made to address the problem of statistical multiplicity in systematic reviews. Before the implications are properly considered, the size of the issue deserves clarification. Because of the emphasis on bias evaluation and because of the editorial processes involved, Cochrane reviews may contain more multiplicity than their non-Cochrane counterparts. This study measured the quantity of statistical multiplicity present in a population of systematic reviews and aimed to assess whether this quantity is different in Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews.Methods/Principal FindingsWe selected all the systematic reviews published by the Cochrane Anaesthesia Review Group containing a meta-analysis and matched them with comparable non-Cochrane reviews. We counted the number of statistical tests done in each systematic review. The median number of tests overall was 10 (interquartile range (IQR) 6 to 18). The median was 12 in Cochrane and 8 in non-Cochrane reviews (difference in medians 4 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.0–19.0). The proportion that used an assessment of risk of bias as a reason for doing extra analyses was 42% in Cochrane and 28% in non-Cochrane reviews (difference in proportions 14% (95% CI −8 to 36). The issue of multiplicity was addressed in 6% of all the reviews.Conclusion/SignificanceStatistical multiplicity in systematic reviews requires attention. We found more multiplicity in Cochrane reviews than in non-Cochrane reviews. Many of the reasons for the increase in multiplicity may well represent improved methodological approaches and greater transparency, but multiplicity may also cause an increased risk of spurious conclusions. Few systematic reviews, whether Cochrane or non-Cochrane, address the issue of multiplicity.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.