Prevalence of Undiagnosed Hypertension in Bangladesh: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Undiagnosed hypertension (UHTN) remains a significant public health concern in Bangladesh, leading to severe complications due to delayed diagnosis and management. This systematic review and meta‐analysis examined the prevalence of UHTN among adults aged 18 years and older, using data from studies conducted in Bangladesh and published between 2010 and 2024. A comprehensive search of major databases yielded 1028 records, from which nine relevant studies, encompassing a total of 28949 participants, were selected and evaluated for quality using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale, providing valuable insights into the prevalence of UHTN within the Bangladeshi population. The pooled prevalence of UHTN was 11% (95% CI: 6%–19%) based on a random‐effects model, with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 99.5%, p < 0.0001). Subgroup analyses revealed higher prevalence in rural areas (13%; 95% CI: 4%–35%) compared to urban areas (12%; 95% CI: 1%–54%) and elevated occupational risk among bankers (17%; 95% CI: 0%–94%). While funnel plot asymmetry was noted, Egger's test (p = 0.3113) indicated no significant publication bias. Sensitivity analyses, including Leave‐One‐Out Analysis, affirmed the robustness of the pooled estimate. The findings underscore notable geographic, occupational, and sociodemographic disparities in UHTN prevalence, highlighting the need for nationwide screening programs and targeted community awareness campaigns, particularly in underserved rural areas. Further research is imperative to explore causal factors and inform effective prevention and management strategies.
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 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.030 |
| 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".