Several studies have investigated the frequency of familial dilated cardiomyopathy (FDC). However, no systematic review and meta-analysis on this topic are available. Therefore, using the PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane, and the ISI Web of Science databases, relevant reports published through December 2010 were identified. For the summation of prevalence findings, prevalence point estimates and 95% confidence intervals were computed using the logit transformation formula. An aggregate estimate of clinically confirmed FDC of 23% (95% confidence interval 0.17 to 0.31) was found. However, the prevalence rates reported across these studies varied widely, ranging from 2% to 65%, and the analysis showed very high heterogeneity (Q = 295, p <0.001, I(2) = 93%). Meta-regression analysis between logit event rate and year of publication explained 23% of between-study variance (p <0.05). Cumulative meta-analysis confirmed the influence of year of publication on the reported prevalence of FDC among the different studies. However, most of the observed heterogeneity may be explained by the fact that the various studies used different preselected criteria for the diagnosis of FDC. In conclusion, data obtained from trials performed using standardized criteria are needed to better define the true prevalence of FDC.

Review and metaanalysis of the frequency of familial dilated cardiomyopathy.

PETRETTA, MARIO;PIROZZI, FLORA;SASSO, LAURA;PAGLIA, ANTONELLA;BONADUCE, DOMENICO
2011

Abstract

Several studies have investigated the frequency of familial dilated cardiomyopathy (FDC). However, no systematic review and meta-analysis on this topic are available. Therefore, using the PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane, and the ISI Web of Science databases, relevant reports published through December 2010 were identified. For the summation of prevalence findings, prevalence point estimates and 95% confidence intervals were computed using the logit transformation formula. An aggregate estimate of clinically confirmed FDC of 23% (95% confidence interval 0.17 to 0.31) was found. However, the prevalence rates reported across these studies varied widely, ranging from 2% to 65%, and the analysis showed very high heterogeneity (Q = 295, p <0.001, I(2) = 93%). Meta-regression analysis between logit event rate and year of publication explained 23% of between-study variance (p <0.05). Cumulative meta-analysis confirmed the influence of year of publication on the reported prevalence of FDC among the different studies. However, most of the observed heterogeneity may be explained by the fact that the various studies used different preselected criteria for the diagnosis of FDC. In conclusion, data obtained from trials performed using standardized criteria are needed to better define the true prevalence of FDC.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11588/415570
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 84
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 77
social impact