Evidence Hub

Circadian Disruptions and Their Impact on Inflammatory Pathways, Neuroendocrine Dysregulation, and Cardiovascular Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abdul Rashid, A. Mushtaq, Shaheera Raghib, Sumaiya Tarannum Shaik, Arun Kumar Maloth, Aima Asim Khan, Saja Saad, Mohammed Saad et al.

Indus Journal of Bioscience Research, 2025

744 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Background: Circadian disruptions, such as shift work, sleep irregularity, and chronic circadian misalignment, have been increasingly linked to adverse health outcomes, particularly affecting cardiovascular health. These disruptions alter inflammatory and neuroendocrine pathways, which may accelerate cardiovascular disease risk. This meta-analysis aimed to synthesize evidence on the association between circadian misalignment, inflammatory markers, neuroendocrine dysregulation, and cardiovascular outcomes. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases, covering studies published between 2015 and 2024. Eligible studies included observational and experimental designs assessing the impact of documented circadian disruptions on inflammatory markers (CRP, IL-6, TNF-α), neuroendocrine biomarkers (cortisol, melatonin), and cardiovascular outcomes (coronary heart disease, cardiovascular events, metabolic risk). Quality assessment was performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for experimental studies and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for observational studies. Due to substantial heterogeneity across studies, a narrative synthesis supported by descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, and visual comparative techniques was applied, rather than a formal pooled effect size calculation. Results: Eight studies (n=744) reported increased inflammatory markers (CRP, IL-6, TNF-α) in circadian…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 744 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free