MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2341210057 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008472

Hypertension prevalence, incidence and risk factors among children and adolescents in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

2015· review· en· W2341210057 on OpenAlexaff
Mickael Essouma, Jean Jacques Noubiap, Jean Joël Bigna, Jobert Richie Nansseu, Ahmadou Musa Jingi, Léopold Ndemnge Aminde, Joseline Zafack

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisIncidence (geometry)Protocol (science)EpidemiologyEnvironmental healthPublic healthSystematic reviewPediatricsFamily medicineMEDLINEDemographyAlternative medicineInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The African adult population is facing a growing epidemic of hypertension. Establishment of accurate epidemiological data on hypertension in African children and adolescents may have important implications for hypertension preventive strategies in Africa. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This systematic review and meta-analysis will follow the MOOSE Guidelines. Relevant abstracts published in English/French from 1 January 1985 to 31 July 2015 will be searched in PubMed, Google Scholar and Online African journals. Full texts of eligible studies will then be accessed through PubMed, Google Scholar, HINARI and the respective journals' websites. Relevant unpublished papers and conference proceedings will also be checked. Data will be analysed using R statistical software. The study-specific estimates will be pooled through a random-effects meta-analysis model to obtain an overall summary estimate of the prevalence/incidence of hypertension across studies. Also, we will assess the association between risk factors and hypertension. Heterogeneity of studies will be evaluated by the χ(2) test on Cochrane's Q statistic. Funnel plots analysis and Egger's test will be done to detect publication bias. Results will be presented by geographic region (central, eastern, northern, southern and western Africa). A p value less than 0.05 will be considered significant for factors that predicted hypertension. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The current study is based on published data, and thus ethical approval is not required. This systematic review and meta-analysis is expected to serve as input for designing early life preventive and control strategies, and as a guide for future research based on existing gaps. The final report of the systematic review in the form of a scientific paper will be published in peer-reviewed journals. Findings will further be presented at conferences and submitted to relevant health authorities. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42015019029.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.061
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.075
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.322

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0610.075
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.022
Bibliometrics0.0110.009
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0700.007

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.241
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.189 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207