Factors associated with hypertension in Pakistan: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High blood pressure is an important public health concern and the leading risk factor for global mortality and morbidity. To assess the implications of this condition, we aimed to review the existing literature and study the factors that are significantly associated with hypertension in the Pakistani population. METHODS: We conducted several electronic searches in PubMed, ISI Web of Science, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Scopus, Elsevier, and manually searched the citations of published articles on hypertension from May 2019 to August 2019. We included all studies that examined factors associated with hypertension regardless of the study design. To assess the quality of the research, we used the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. We also conducted meta-analyses using the DerSimonian & Laird random-effects model to collate results from at least three studies. RESULTS: We included 30 cross-sectional and 7 case-control studies (99,391 participants country-wide) in this review and found 13 (35.1%) to be high-quality studies. We identified 5 socio-demographic, 3 lifestyle, 3 health-related, and 4 psychological variables that were significantly associated with hypertension. Adults aged between 30-60 years who were married, living in urban areas with high incomes, used tobacco, had a family history of hypertension, and had comorbidities (overweight, obesity, diabetes, anxiety, stress, and anger management issues) were positively associated with hypertension. On the other hand, individuals having high education levels, normal physical activity, and unrestricted salt in their diet were negatively associated with hypertension. CONCLUSION: We found several socio-demographic, lifestyle, health-related, and psychological factors that were significantly (positively and negatively) associated with hypertension. Our findings may help physicians and public health workers to identify high-risk groups and recommend appropriate prevention strategies. Further research is warranted to investigate these factors rigorously and collate global evidence on the same.
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 | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".