Systematic review and meta-analysis examining the relationship between postprandial hypotension, cardiovascular events, and all-cause mortality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Postprandial hypotension (PPH) has been reported to be associated with syncope, falls, adverse cardiovascular outcomes, and increased all-cause mortality. It has been reported to have an incidence as high as 30% in the elderly and persons with diabetes. We therefore performed a meta-analysis to determine the relation of PPH with cardiovascular disease (CVD) events and all-cause mortality. OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort and cross-sectional studies to determine the association of PPH with CVD and all-cause mortality. METHODS: We searched the databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane library up to 13 April 2022 for prospective cohort and cross-sectional studies that examined the association of PPH with CVD outcomes and all-cause mortality. Data were analyzed using the generic inverse variance method with a random-effects model. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach assessed the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: Seven studies that included 2389 participants met our inclusion criteria. PPH was associated with each outcome individually, including increased all-cause mortality, total CVD, CVD mortality, and stroke. CVD outcomes and all-cause mortality combined were also associated with PPH (RR: 1.52; 95% CI: 1.05, 2.18; P = 0.03; I2 = 77%). The certainty of evidence was graded as very low due to significant heterogeneity and the limited number of studies. CONCLUSIONS: This assessment indicates an association of PPH with CVD and all-cause mortality. Further studies are required to improve CVD and mortality estimates, but the potential seriousness of CVD and all-cause mortality as outcomes of PPH justifies more screening, diagnosis, and research.
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 | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".