MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206693062 · doi:10.3389/fcvm.2021.810105

Isolated Diastolic Hypertension and Risk of Cardiovascular Events: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies With 489,814 Participants

2022· review· en· W4206693062 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mingyan Huang, Linzi Long, Ling Tan, Aling Shen, Mi Deng, Yuxuan Peng, Wenwen Yang, Wanqing Li, Yue Wei, Meng Li, Feifei Liao, Chao Liu, Aimei Lu, Hua Qu, Changgeng Fu, Keji Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChina Academy of Chinese Medical SciencesChina Association for Science and Technology
KeywordsMedicinePublication biasInternal medicineMeta-analysisFunnel plotHazard ratioStroke (engine)Cochrane LibraryCohortCohort studyCardiologyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background:The association between isolated diastolic hypertension (IDH) and cardiovascular events has been inconsistently reported. This meta-analysis of cohort studies was designed to investigate the effect of the 2018 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) definition of IDH on the risk of composite cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and all strokes including ischemic stroke (IS) and hemorrhagic stroke (HS). Methods:PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched from inception to July 6, 2021. Cohort studies that investigated the association between IDH and cardiovascular events risk, compared to normotension, were included. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were calculated using a random-effects models and heterogeneity was evaluated usingQ-test andI2statistic. The robustness of the associations was identified using sensitivity analysis. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plot, trim-and-fill method, Begg's test, and Egger's test. Results:A total of 15 cohort studies (13 articles) including 489,814 participants were included in this meta-analysis. The follow-up period ranged from 4.3 to 29 years. IDH was significantly associated with an increased risk of composite cardiovascular events (HR 1.28, 95% CI: 1.07–1.52,p= 0.006), cardiovascular mortality (HR 1.45, 95% CI: 1.07–1.95,p= 0.015), all strokes (HR 1.44, 95% CI: 1.04–2.01,p= 0.03), and HS (HR 1.64, 95% CI: 1.18–2.29,p= 0.164), but not associated with all-cause mortality (HR 1.20, 95% CI: 0.97–1.47,p= 0.087) and IS (HR 1.56, 95% CI: 0.87–2.81,p= 0.137). Subgroup analysis further indicated that IDH in the younger patients (mean age ≤ 55 years) and from Asia were significantly associated with an increased risk of composite cardiovascular events, while the elderly patients (mean age ≥ 55 years), Americans, and Europeans were not significantly associated with an increased risk of composite cardiovascular events. Conclusion:This meta-analysis provides evidence that IDH defined using the 2018 ESC criterion is significantly associated with an increased risk of composite cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality, all strokes and HS, but not significantly associated with all-cause death and IS. These findings also emphasize the importance for patients with IDH to have their blood pressure within normal, especially in the young adults and Asians. Trial Registration:PROSPERO, Identifier: CRD42021254108.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.038
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.117
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.206 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations41
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Cardiovascular MedicineSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207