Prevalence of systolic inter-arm differences in blood pressure for different primary care populations: systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 5.2 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL British Journal of General Practice Pub Date : 2016-11-01 Epub Date: 2016-10-10 DOI:10.3399/bjgp16X687553
Christopher E Clark, Rod S Taylor, Angela C Shore, John L Campbell
{"title":"Prevalence of systolic inter-arm differences in blood pressure for different primary care populations: systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Christopher E Clark, Rod S Taylor, Angela C Shore, John L Campbell","doi":"10.3399/bjgp16X687553","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Various prevalence figures have been reported for inter-arm differences in blood pressure (IAD); variation may be explained by differing population vascular risk and by measurement method.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To review the literature to derive robust estimates of IAD prevalence relevant to community populations.</p><p><strong>Design and setting: </strong>Systematic review and meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL were searched for cross-sectional studies likely to represent general or primary care populations, reporting prevalence of IAD and employing a simultaneous method of measurement. Using study-level data, pooled estimates of mean prevalence of systolic IADs were calculated and compared using a random effects model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighty IAD studies were identified. Sixteen met inclusion criteria: pooled estimates of prevalence for systolic IAD ≥10 mmHg were 11.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 9.1 to 13.6) in hypertension, 7.4% (95% CI = 5.8 to 9.2) in diabetes, and 3.6% (95% CI = 2.3 to 5.0) for a general adult population (P<0.001 for subgroup differences). Differences persisted for higher cut-off values. Prevalences were lower for East Asian than for Western populations and were overestimated by sequential measurement where this could be compared with simultaneous measurement within studies (relative risk for IAD: 2.9 [95% CI = 2.1 to 4.1]). Studies with higher mean absolute systolic pressures had higher prevalences for a systolic IAD ≥10 mmHg (P = 0.04).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Prevalences of IADs rise in relation to underlying cardiovascular comorbidities of the population studied, and are overestimated threefold when sequential measurement is used. Population-specific variation in prevalences of IAD should be taken into account in delivering clinical care and in planning future studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":55320,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of General Practice","volume":"488 1","pages":"e838-e847"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2016-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5072922/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of General Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp16X687553","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2016/10/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Various prevalence figures have been reported for inter-arm differences in blood pressure (IAD); variation may be explained by differing population vascular risk and by measurement method.

Aim: To review the literature to derive robust estimates of IAD prevalence relevant to community populations.

Design and setting: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Method: MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL were searched for cross-sectional studies likely to represent general or primary care populations, reporting prevalence of IAD and employing a simultaneous method of measurement. Using study-level data, pooled estimates of mean prevalence of systolic IADs were calculated and compared using a random effects model.

Results: Eighty IAD studies were identified. Sixteen met inclusion criteria: pooled estimates of prevalence for systolic IAD ≥10 mmHg were 11.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 9.1 to 13.6) in hypertension, 7.4% (95% CI = 5.8 to 9.2) in diabetes, and 3.6% (95% CI = 2.3 to 5.0) for a general adult population (P<0.001 for subgroup differences). Differences persisted for higher cut-off values. Prevalences were lower for East Asian than for Western populations and were overestimated by sequential measurement where this could be compared with simultaneous measurement within studies (relative risk for IAD: 2.9 [95% CI = 2.1 to 4.1]). Studies with higher mean absolute systolic pressures had higher prevalences for a systolic IAD ≥10 mmHg (P = 0.04).

Conclusion: Prevalences of IADs rise in relation to underlying cardiovascular comorbidities of the population studied, and are overestimated threefold when sequential measurement is used. Population-specific variation in prevalences of IAD should be taken into account in delivering clinical care and in planning future studies.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
不同初级保健人群收缩期臂间血压差异的患病率:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:关于臂间血压差异(IAD)的患病率数据有不同的报道;不同的人群血管风险和测量方法可以解释差异。目的:回顾文献,得出与社区人群相关的IAD患病率的可靠估计。设计与设置:系统评价与荟萃分析。方法:检索MEDLINE、Embase和CINAHL可能代表普通或初级保健人群的横断面研究,报告IAD的患病率并采用同步测量方法。使用研究水平的数据,计算收缩期IADs平均患病率的汇总估计值,并使用随机效应模型进行比较。结果:确定了80个IAD研究。16例符合纳入标准:高血压患者收缩期IAD≥10 mmHg患病率的汇总估计为11.2%(95%置信区间[CI] = 9.1至13.6),糖尿病患者为7.4% (95% CI = 5.8至9.2),普通成人人群为3.6% (95% CI = 2.3至5.0)。结论:IAD患病率与研究人群潜在的心血管合并症相关,当使用顺序测量时,IAD患病率被高估了三倍。在提供临床护理和规划未来的研究时,应考虑到内源性内源性疾病患病率的人群特异性差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
British Journal of General Practice
British Journal of General Practice 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
10.20%
发文量
681
期刊介绍: The British Journal of General Practice is an international journal publishing research, editorials, debate and analysis, and clinical guidance for family practitioners and primary care researchers worldwide. BJGP began in 1953 as the ‘College of General Practitioners’ Research Newsletter’, with the ‘Journal of the College of General Practitioners’ first appearing in 1960. Following the change in status of the College, the ‘Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners’ was launched in 1967. Three editors later, in 1990, the title was changed to the ‘British Journal of General Practice’. The journal is commonly referred to as the ''BJGP'', and is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners.
期刊最新文献
Understanding measurement of postural hypotension: a nationwide survey of general practice in England. Evidence-based tests to monitor adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus in primary care: rapid reviews and consensus process. Patients' perceptions on reasons for self-referring to the emergency department shortly before a cancer diagnosis: a qualitative study. Anaemia, ethnicity, and cancer incidence: a retrospective cohort study in primary care. Patterns of diagnostic testing for oesophagogastric cancer-related symptoms in Australian primary care: a retrospective cohort study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1