Association between hypertension and impaired lung function among adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Impaired lung function and hypertension are both significant global public health concerns, and their potential association has recently drawn considerable interest. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to investigate the association between impaired lung function and hypertension, and vice versa. METHODS: We searched CINAHL (EBSCOhost), MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus and Web of Science up to 22nd July 2025 for observational studies involving adults (≥ 18 years) reporting hypertension and impaired lung function. Grey literature was also searched, and data extraction was verified independently. The review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023427631). Random effects models estimated pooled ORs with 95% CIs. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression were performed to identify potential sources of heterogeneity. Quality assessment was conducted using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and JBI checklist and publication bias were appraised. RESULTS: This systematic review included 28 articles, of which 26 articles were selected for the meta-analysis. Of these, 17 studies (n = 134823) examined impaired lung function as the exposure, while 9 studies (n = 12522) investigated hypertension as the exposure. Our findings revealed that the pooled unadjusted effect of lung function impairment on hypertension was 1.70 (95% CI: [1.53-1.88]), while the pooled adjusted effect was lower at 1.40 (95% CI: [1.31-1.49]). In contrast, the pooled unadjusted effect of hypertension on lung impairment was 3.00 (95% CI: [1.86-4.82]), but the pooled adjusted effect decreased to 1.94 (95% CI: [1.51-2.50]). The findings indicate that obstructive, restrictive and mixed lung function impairments are significantly associated with hypertension. Restrictive lung impairment consistently shows a stronger association with hypertension compared to obstructive impairment when impaired lung function is the exposure. CONCLUSION: This study concludes that there is a significant positive association between impaired lung function and hypertension in both directions, with stronger temporal evidence suggesting that impaired lung function may precede hypertension, while the reverse causal direction lacks such evidence.
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 | 0.015 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.041 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".