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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".