MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3017265431 · doi:10.1093/ajh/hpaa056

Seasonal Blood Pressure Variation: A Neglected Confounder in Clinical Hypertension Research and Practice

2020· letter· en· W3017265431 sur OpenAlexaff
George S. Stergiou, Paolo Palatini, Αναστάσιος Κόλλιας, Konstantinos G. Kyriakoulis, Martin G. Myers, Eoin O’Brien, Gianfranco Parati, Pietro Amedeo Modesti

Notice bibliographique

RevueAmerican Journal of Hypertension · 2020
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Établissements canadiensHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineBlood pressureConfoundingClinical PracticeVariation (astronomy)Internal medicineCardiologyIntensive care medicinePhysical therapy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

For more than a century blood pressure (BP) measured by the doctor in the office has been recognized as an indisputable predictor of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.1,2 However, BP is known to show dynamic variability in response to the physical and emotional challenges of routine daily activities, which may confound any investigation involving BP changes.3 Many factors are known to influence BP readings,1 including the physical and emotional challenges of routine daily activities, the setting (office, home, work), the observer (doctor, nurse, self-measurement, automated unattended), the device (auscultatory, automated), the patient’s posture (seated, standing, lying), the time of measurement (morning, evening, nighttime sleep), the measurement schedule (number of readings and those averaged), talking, exercise, meals, smoking, coffee, alcohol, and time of antihypertensive drug intake. In recognizing these confounding factors, international recommendations have standardized the methodologies for BP evaluation in the office and out-of-the-office to minimize their influence and improve the accuracy of BP evaluation.4,5 In the American Journal of Hypertension Gepts et al.6 have added to this list of confounders by demonstrating how seasonal variations in BP can influence the interpretation of interventions aiming at improving BP control. In this study, when seasonality was not accounted for, a significant negative association of the study intervention on BP control was observed. However, when BP seasonality was taken into account, they showed that the intervention had no effect on BP control. It is surprising that this major confounder has been systematically ignored for so long. A recent review and meta-analysis of 47 published trials which examined seasonal changes in BP7 showed that the seasonal BP variation is a global phenomenon affecting all age groups, both sexes, and normotensive and hypertensive subjects. Meta-analysis of these trials showed an average seasonal BP decline in the high-temperature season of 6/3 mm Hg (systolic/diastolic) for office and home BP and 3.5/2 mm Hg for daytime ambulatory BP, and a small rise in nighttime ambulatory BP (1.3/0.5 mm Hg).7 Importantly, these changes were greater in treated hypertensive patients and in older individuals.7 Thus, these findings suggest that the magnitude of the seasonal BP change is comparable to the reduction that might be expected from an effective antihypertensive drug, particularly in elderly patients. The 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association2 as well as the 2018 European Society of Cardiology/European Society of Hypertension guidelines1 for hypertension do not mention the seasonal BP variation phenomenon, and no recommendations are provided for guiding the practicing physicians on its potential implications in treating hypertension. The European Society of Hypertension Working Group on BP Monitoring and Cardiovascular Variability recently published a consensus statement on the seasonal variation in BP,8 in which the evidence on the epidemiology, pathophysiology, relevance, and magnitude of the seasonal BP variation was presented together with recommendations for practicing physicians.8 The potential impact of the seasonal BP variation on the interpretation of clinical hypertension research was also discussed,8 leading to the conclusion that failure to take this factor into account may have distorted the findings of numerous published clinical hypertension trials and epidemiological surveys (Table 1). Consequences of not adjusting the results of clinical hypertension trials for the seasonal BP variation Abbreviation: BP, blood pressure. Consequences of not adjusting the results of clinical hypertension trials for the seasonal BP variation Abbreviation: BP, blood pressure. In conclusion, the article by Gepts et al.6 clearly demonstrated that the environmental temperature must be taken into account in clinical hypertension research when evaluating or comparing BP measurements taken on different occasions throughout different seasons. Clinical trials using office or out-of-office BP measurements as efficacy measures, which last long enough to be influenced by ambient temperature change, need to be adjusted for the seasonal variation in BP. Such an adjustment should be proportional to the change in environmental temperature and should be based on BP changes observed at the same time interval without intervention and assessed using the same BP measurement methodology. The authors declared no conflict of interest.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,018
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,100
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,022
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,093

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0180,100
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,003
Communication savante0,0030,005
Science ouverte0,0020,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0220,022
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,004

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,143
Tête enseignante GPT0,373
Écart entre enseignants0,230 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations13
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAmerican Journal of HypertensionMême sujetBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesTravaux en français237 207