Limits...
Blood pressure variability and cardiovascular disease: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Stevens SL, Wood S, Koshiaris C, Law K, Glasziou P, Stevens RJ, McManus RJ - BMJ (2016)

Bottom Line: Results from 23 analyses were excluded from main analyses owing to high risks of confounding.Limited data for mid-term and short term variability showed similar associations.Future work should focus on the clinical implications of assessment of variability in blood pressure and avoid the common confounding pitfalls observed to date.  PROSPERO CRD42014015695.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK richard.stevens@phc.ox.ac.uk.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Fig 1 Study screening flowchart
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4979357&req=5

f1: Fig 1 Study screening flowchart

Mentions: Searches identified 5861 references. Removal of duplicates and screening by two reviewers yielded 41 full text articles for inclusion (fig 1). These 41 papers represented 19 observational cohort studies and 17 clinical trial cohorts, and 46 separate analyses (see supplementary table e4). Twenty four papers101415161819383940414243444546474849505152535455 studied long term variability (ie, monitoring of blood pressure in clinics), four56575859 studied mid-term variability (home monitoring), and 15101112134160616263646566676869 studied short term variability (ambulatory monitoring). The number of participants in each study ranged from 45741 to 122 63654 and follow-up ranged from 2514 person years41 to 490 544 person years.54


Blood pressure variability and cardiovascular disease: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Stevens SL, Wood S, Koshiaris C, Law K, Glasziou P, Stevens RJ, McManus RJ - BMJ (2016)

Fig 1 Study screening flowchart
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4979357&req=5

f1: Fig 1 Study screening flowchart
Mentions: Searches identified 5861 references. Removal of duplicates and screening by two reviewers yielded 41 full text articles for inclusion (fig 1). These 41 papers represented 19 observational cohort studies and 17 clinical trial cohorts, and 46 separate analyses (see supplementary table e4). Twenty four papers101415161819383940414243444546474849505152535455 studied long term variability (ie, monitoring of blood pressure in clinics), four56575859 studied mid-term variability (home monitoring), and 15101112134160616263646566676869 studied short term variability (ambulatory monitoring). The number of participants in each study ranged from 45741 to 122 63654 and follow-up ranged from 2514 person years41 to 490 544 person years.54

Bottom Line: Results from 23 analyses were excluded from main analyses owing to high risks of confounding.Limited data for mid-term and short term variability showed similar associations.Future work should focus on the clinical implications of assessment of variability in blood pressure and avoid the common confounding pitfalls observed to date.  PROSPERO CRD42014015695.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK richard.stevens@phc.ox.ac.uk.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus