4.4 Article

Incidence of Stroke Subtypes in the North East Melbourne Stroke Incidence Study (NEMESIS): Differences between Men and Women

期刊

NEUROEPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 32, 期 1, 页码 11-18

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000170086

关键词

Cerebrovascular disorders; Epidemiology; Incidence, stroke; Intracerebral haemorrhage; Ischemic stroke; Subarachnoid haemorrhage

资金

  1. National Health & Medical Research Council
  2. Victorian Health Promotion Foundation
  3. Foundation for High Blood Pressure Research
  4. National Stroke Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Purpose: Incidence rates of stroke subtypes may be imprecise when samples are small. We aimed to determine the incidence of stroke subtypes in a large geographically defined population. Methods: Multiple overlapping sources were used to ascertain all strokes occurring in 22 postcodes (population of 306,631) of Melbourne, Australia, between 1997 and 1999. Stroke subtypes were defined by CT, MRI and autopsy. The Mantel-Haenszel age-adjusted rate ratio (MH RR) was used to compare incidence rates between men and women. Results: We identified 1,421 strokes among 1,337 residents, 1,035 (72.8%) being first-ever strokes. Incidence (number/100,000 population/year), adjusted to the European population 45-84 years, was 197 (95% confidence interval, CI, 169-224) for ischemic stroke (IS), 47 (95% CI 33-60) for intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) and 19 (95% CI 10-27) for subarachnoid haemorrhage (SAH). Compared with women, men in this age group had a greater incidence of IS (MH RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.39-1.96, p < 0.0001) and ICH (MH RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.01-2.10, p = 0.0420), but lesser rates of SAH (MH RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.16-0.69, p = 0.0031). Conclusions: In this population-based study, the incidence of IS and ICH was greater among men than women, while women had a greater incidence of SAH. More effort may need to be directed at modifying risk factors for IS and ICH in men. Copyright (C) 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据