Ca(2+)/Finding
One finding, on its own
A single claim from the graph, with the evidence strength computed from its study, the sentence it was drawn from, and the paper. This address does not change.
Increases incidence of myocardial infarction
ModerateEvidence strength: moderate. Human evidence with one recorded weakness, or capped at moderate by its design or by unread numbers.Finding“The meta-analysis of trial level data showed similar results: 296 people had a myocardial infarction (166 allocated to calcium, 130 to placebo), with an increased incidence of myocardial infarction in those allocated to calcium (pooled relative risk 1.27, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.59, P=0.038).”
Quoted verbatim from Effect of calcium supplements on risk of myocardial infarction and cardiovascular events: meta-analysis.. - Study
- meta-analysis
- Dose
- calcium supplements of at least 500 mg/day (eligibility criterion)
- Population
- Adults (mean age over 40) in randomised placebo-controlled trials of calcium supplements without coadministered vitamin D; trial-level pooled analysis
Effect 1.27 risk ratio, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.59
Effect of calcium supplements on risk of myocardial infarction and cardiovascular events: meta-analysis.2010PMID:20671013Permalink
Keep reading
- Everything the graph holds on Ca(2+)
- Every compound studied against Incidence of myocardial infarction
- How to read the evidence strength and the marks
To cite this finding: https://catalystproject.ai/e/01M4QGV4Y7WJ8SW8BYXJJ855KN