Association between atopic dermatitis and hypertension: a systematic review and meta‐analysis*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have found conflicting results about the association of atopic dermatitis (AD) with hypertension. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether AD and AD severity are associated with hypertension. METHODS: A systematic review was performed of published studies in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and GREAT (Global Resource for EczemA Trials) databases. At least two reviewers conducted title/abstract, full-text review and data extraction. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Fifty-one studies met the inclusion criteria and 19 had sufficient data for meta-analysis. AD was associated with higher odds of hypertension compared with healthy controls [increased in nine of 16 studies; pooled prevalence 16·4% vs. 13·8%; random-effects regression, pooled unadjusted odds ratio (OR) 1·16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1·04-1·30], but lower odds of hypertension compared with psoriasis [decreased in five of eight studies; 15·4% vs. 24·8% (OR 0·53, 95% CI 0·37-0·76)]. In particular, moderate-to-severe AD was associated with hypertension compared with healthy controls [increased in four of six studies; 24·9% vs. 14·7% (OR 2·33, 95% CI 1·10-4·94)]. Hypertension was commonly reported as an adverse event secondary to AD treatments, particularly systemic ciclosporin A. Limitations include lack of longitudinal studies or individual-level data, and potential confounding. CONCLUSIONS: AD, particularly moderate-to-severe disease, was associated with increased hypertension compared with healthy controls, but with lower odds than for psoriasis.
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 | 0.013 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".