4.6 Review

Prevalence, incidence and associated mortality of cardiovascular disease in patients with chronic kidney disease in low- and middle-income countries: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

BMJ OPEN
卷 7, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016412

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a global public health problem, with cardiovascular disease (CVD) being the major cause of mortality in these patients. Despite a high burden of CKD among patients in low/middle-income countries (LMICs), evidence on the distribution of CVD among these patients is lacking. This review seeks to determine the prevalence, incidence and mortality risks of CVD in patients with CKD in LMICs. Methods and analysis A systematic search of Medline, Scopus, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health and WHO Global Health Library databases for published studies reporting on the prevalence, incidence and associated mortality risk of CVD in CKD patients in LMICs will be conducted from 1 May 1987 to 1 July 2017 with no language restriction. Two authors will independently screen, select studies, extract data and assess the risk of bias in each study. Clinically homogeneous studies will be pooled after assessing for clinical and statistical heterogeneity using the chi(2) test on Cochrane's Q statistic which is quantified by I-2 values; assuming that I-2 values of 25%, 50% and 75% represent low, medium and high heterogeneity, respectively. Funnel-plot analysis and Egger's test will be used to detect publication bias. Results will be presented according to WHO Regions (Africa, Americas, Eastern Mediterranean, Europe, South-East Asia and Western Pacific). Ethics and dissemination This proposed study will not require ethical approval as it will be based on published data. We will publish the final report of this review in a peer-reviewed journal, and the findings will be disseminated to the appropriate health authorities.

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

4.6
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