@entity1723 and risk of XXXX : meta-analysis and review of the literature.

@entity1 @entity6 @entity174 @entity173 @entity1723
AIMS: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies in order to assess the association between @entity1723 and @entity174 . BACKGROUND: The risk of @entity174 in @entity1 and @entity1 with @entity1723 has not been studied in a large prospective well designed cohort. METHODS: Data were selected from Medline and Embase and abstracts from annual scientific meetings of various @entity6 and bone and mineral societies. Published studies that reported the @entity174 risk in @entity1 with @entity1723 in comparison with @entity1 without @entity6 between 1990 and July 2014 and abstracts from various annual meeting (2005 onwards) were included in the present meta-analysis. Data were extracted from the text of included publications or from abstracts of conferences. RESULTS: The 14 studies that met the inclusion criteria reported 2066 @entity174 events among 27 300 @entity1 with @entity1723 (7.6%) and 136 579 @entity174 events among 4 364 125 @entity1 without @entity6 (3.1%). The pooled relative risk of any @entity174 in @entity1 with @entity1723 was 3.16 (95% CI 1.51-6.63; P  =  0.002). @entity1 and @entity1 with @entity1723 had a four and two times higher risk of any @entity174 , respectively, compared with @entity1 without @entity6 . The pooled relative risks of @entity173 and @entity174 were 3.78 (95% CI 2.05-6.98; P  <  0.001) and 2.88 (95% CI 1.71-4.82; P  <  0.001), respectively, among @entity1 with @entity1723 . CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis suggests that both @entity1 and @entity1 with @entity1723 might have an increased risk of any @entity174 . A large prospective epidemiological study is needed to confirm our findings.
