Associação e fatores de risco para a hipertensão arterial sistêmica em pessoa vivendo com HIV, em comparação com população não infectada pelo HIV: uma revisão sistemática com meta-análise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Research on the prevalence of hypertension among People living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) has yielded conflicting results. The association and risk factors for this condition, when comparing PLWHA to non-infected individuals, remain inconclusive and may be related to traditional risk factors or HIV-specific characteristics. Objective: To evaluate the association and risk factors for hypertension in PLWHA compared to non-infected individuals. Methods: A systematic review with meta-analysis of observational studies (cross-sectional, cohort, and case-control) was conducted. Searches were performed in four databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Global Index Medicus), supplemented by manual searches of reference lists from included studies. Retrieved results were imported into the Covidence® software, where duplicates were removed, and study selection and data extraction were conducted. Eligible participants were those aged ≥18 years with a medical diagnosis of hypertension, self-reported hypertension diagnosis, use of antihypertensive medication, or studies using electronic health records to classify participants with hypertension. Studies conducted with children and adolescents under 18 years old, pregnant women, non-systemic hypertension, and other study designs were excluded. The methodological quality of the included articles was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort and case-control studies and the Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies for cross-sectional studies. Outcomes evaluated included systolic and diastolic blood pressure by HIV status, the association between HIV status and hypertension, and risk factors for hypertension. Continuous outcome data were summarized using the mean difference (MD) as the effect measure, based on a random-effects model. Binary outcomes were analyzed using the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity was quantified using Cochran's Q test and Higgins' I² test. Publication bias was assessed through funnel plots and Egger’s statistical test. Results: 24 studies were included, though only cross-sectional studies (n = 21) were analyzed in the meta-analysis. Five studies were of low methodological quality, nine of moderate quality, and ten of high quality. PLWHA had a 9% lower risk of hypertension compared to non-infected individuals, but this difference was not statistically significant (RR 0.91, 95% CI: 0.76–1.09). Considerable heterogeneity was observed (I² = 98.4%), and the funnel plot revealed an asymmetric distribution, confirmed by Egger’s test. PLWHA tended to have significantly lower systolic blood pressure than non-infected individuals (MD: -3.67, 95% CI: -6.70; -0.64). Regarding diastolic blood pressure, although PLWHA showed lower values than non-infected individuals, the difference was not statistically significant (MD: -0.21, 95% CI: -2.38–1.96). Additionally, women (RR 0.46, 95% CI: 0.27–0.79) and overweight HIV-infected participants (RR 0.74, 95% CI: 0.56–0.98) had a significantly lower risk of hypertension compared to non-infected individuals. Conclusion: The results showed that PLWHA had lower mean differences in systolic and diastolic blood pressure and risk in the association between HIV status and hypertension. However, interpretations require caution due to the low to moderate methodological quality and high heterogeneity.
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 | 0.019 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| 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".