MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

[PP.LB03.07] WHAT IS THE NORMAL INTER-ARM DIFFERENCE? IT DEPENDS ON LEFT OR RIGHT HANDEDNESS

2016· article· en· W2485824985 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shivam Joshi, C. Clark, John Campbell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hypertension · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicDiverse Scientific and Economic Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisStudy heterogeneitySubgroup analysisCINAHLCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Inter-arm blood pressure differences (IAD) are normally distributed, and normal ranges for systolic IADs around +/- 10mmHg have frequently been proposed. Some studies report higher mean blood pressure (BP) readings for right compared to left arms, but this is not consistent. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the usual difference in BP between right and left arms, and to explore any effect of hand dominance on IAD. Design and method: EmBase, Medline and CINAHL were searched to October 2015 using text terms for IAD. Journal collections, conference abstracts, grey literature, and reference lists were also checked. We included studies measuring BP simultaneously in both arms, seeking additional data from study authors where needed. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Mean IAD (right minus left) was calculated for each study and data were pooled by inverse variance in random effects models. Heterogeneity was quantified using the I2 statistic and explored within subgroup analysis by study quality. Results: We identified 1672 unique citations; 27 studies contributed to meta-analyses. Systolic BP was 1.0mmHg (95%CI 0.7 to 1.3) higher for right compared to left arms (27 studies, 14398 subjects). Statistical heterogeneity was lower for high quality (I2 = 14%) compared to low quality studies (I2 = 77%). Diastolic BP did not differ between arms (0.1mmHg, -0.2 to 0.4; 24 studies: 13266 subjects). For right handed subjects systolic BP was 1.3mmHg (1.0 to 1.7) higher in the right arm (I2 = 0%; 6 cohorts, 3301 subjects) but did not differ in left handed subjects (0.1mmHg, -0.8 to 1.0, I2 = 0%; 272 subjects; p = 0.02). A non-significant opposite trend was seen for diastolic BP: -0.3mmHg (1.3 to 0.7) right handed; 0.7mmHg (-0.6 to 2.1) left handed (p = 0.23). Conclusions: Overall systolic BP is 1mmHg higher in the right compared to the left arm. Right handedness dominates the population masking a different pattern in left handed people. Arterial anatomy and asymmetric arm development probably explain the differences observed. The findings are relevant for BP measurement protocols favouring non-dominant arms, and for future studies of inter-arm difference.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.004

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.153 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HypertensionSame topicDiverse Scientific and Economic StudiesFrench-language works237,207