Is the association between blood pressure and mortality in older adults different with frailty? A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: to investigate whether the association between blood pressure and clinical outcomes is different in older adults with and without frailty, using observational studies. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL were searched from 1st January 2000 to 13th June 2018. PROSPERO CRD42017081635. We included all observational studies reporting clinical outcomes in older adults with an average age over 65 years living in the community with and without treatment that measured blood pressure and frailty using validated methods. Two independent reviewers evaluated study quality and risk of bias using the ROBANS tool. We used generic inverse variance modelling to pool risks of all-cause mortality adjusted for age and sex. RESULTS: nine observational studies involving 21,906 older adults were included, comparing all-cause mortality over a mean of six years. Fixed effects meta-analysis of six studies demonstrated that in people with frailty, there was no mortality difference associated with systolic blood pressure <140 mm Hg compared to systolic blood pressure >140 mm Hg (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.16). In the absence of frailty, systolic blood pressure <140 mm Hg was associated with lower risk of death compared to systolic blood pressure >140 mm Hg (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.96). CONCLUSIONS: evidence from observational studies demonstrates no mortality difference for older people with frailty whose systolic blood pressure is <140 mm Hg, compared to those with a systolic blood pressure >140 mm Hg. Current evidence fails to capture the complexities of blood pressure measurement, and the association with non-fatal outcomes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.043 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".