-
JAMA Pediatrics Dec 2019Reliable estimates of the prevalence of childhood hypertension serve as the basis for adequate prevention and treatment. However, the prevalence of childhood... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Reliable estimates of the prevalence of childhood hypertension serve as the basis for adequate prevention and treatment. However, the prevalence of childhood hypertension has rarely been synthesized at the global level.
OBJECTIVE
To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the prevalence of hypertension in the general pediatric population.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, and Global Health Library were searched from inception until June 2018, using search terms related to hypertension (hypertension OR high blood pressure OR elevated blood pressure), children (children OR adolescents), and prevalence (prevalence OR epidemiology).
STUDY SELECTION
Studies that were conducted in the general pediatric population and quantified the prevalence of childhood hypertension were eligible. Included studies had blood pressure measurements from at least 3 separate occasions.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two authors independently extracted data. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to derive the pooled prevalence. Variations in the prevalence estimates in different subgroups, including age group, sex, setting, device, investigation period, BMI group, World Health Organization region and World Bank region, were examined by subgroup meta-analysis. Meta-regression was used to establish the age-specific prevalence of childhood hypertension and to assess its secular trend.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Prevalence of childhood hypertension overall and by subgroup.
RESULTS
A total of 47 articles were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence was 4.00% (95% CI, 3.29%-4.78%) for hypertension, 9.67% (95% CI, 7.26%-12.38%) for prehypertension, 4.00% (95% CI, 2.10%-6.48%) for stage 1 hypertension, and 0.95% (95% CI, 0.48%-1.57%) for stage 2 hypertension in children 19 years and younger. In subgroup meta-analyses, the prevalence of childhood hypertension was higher when measured by aneroid sphygmomanometer (7.23% vs 4.59% by mercury sphygmomanometer vs 2.94% by oscillometric sphygmomanometer) and among overweight and obese children (15.27% and 4.99% vs 1.90% among normal-weight children). A trend of increasing prevalence of childhood hypertension was observed during the past 2 decades, with a relative increasing rate of 75% to 79% from 2000 to 2015. In 2015, the prevalence of hypertension ranged from 4.32% (95% CI, 2.79%-6.63%) among children aged 6 years to 3.28% (95% CI, 2.25%-4.77%) among those aged 19 years and peaked at 7.89% (95% CI, 5.75%-10.75%) among those aged 14 years.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
This study provides a global estimation of childhood hypertension prevalence based on blood pressure measurements in at least 3 separate visits. More high-quality epidemiologic investigations on childhood hypertension are still needed.
Topics: Child; Global Health; Humans; Hypertension; Prevalence
PubMed: 31589252
DOI: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.3310 -
Anesthesiology May 2014Continuous noninvasive arterial pressure monitoring devices are available for bedside use, but the accuracy and precision of these devices have not been evaluated in a... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Continuous noninvasive arterial pressure monitoring devices are available for bedside use, but the accuracy and precision of these devices have not been evaluated in a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing continuous noninvasive arterial pressure monitoring with invasive arterial pressure monitoring. Random-effects pooled bias and SD of bias for systolic arterial pressure, diastolic arterial pressure, and mean arterial pressure were calculated. Continuous noninvasive arterial pressure monitoring was considered acceptable if pooled estimates of bias and SD were not greater than 5 and 8 mmHg, respectively, as recommended by the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation.
RESULTS
Twenty-eight studies (919 patients) were included. The overall random-effect pooled bias and SD were -1.6 ± 12.2 mmHg (95% limits of agreement -25.5 to 22.2 mmHg) for systolic arterial pressure, 5.3 ± 8.3 mmHg (-11.0 to 21.6 mmHg) for diastolic arterial pressure, and 3.2 ± 8.4 mmHg (-13.4 to 19.7 mmHg) for mean arterial pressure. In 14 studies focusing on currently commercially available devices, bias and SD were -1.8 ± 12.4 mmHg (-26.2 to 22.5 mmHg) for systolic arterial pressure, 6.0 ± 8.6 mmHg (-10.9 to 22.9 mmHg) for diastolic arterial pressure, and 3.9 ± 8.7 mmHg (-13.1 to 21.0 mmHg) for mean arterial pressure.
CONCLUSIONS
The results from this meta-analysis found that inaccuracy and imprecision of continuous noninvasive arterial pressure monitoring devices are larger than what was defined as acceptable. This may have implications for clinical situations where continuous noninvasive arterial pressure is being used for patient care decisions.
Topics: Arterial Pressure; Blood Pressure Determination; Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory; Blood Pressure Monitors; Humans
PubMed: 24637618
DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000000226 -
Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) Nov 2014Visit-to-visit variability of blood pressure (BP) has been associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality in some but not all studies. We conducted a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Visit-to-visit variability of blood pressure (BP) has been associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality in some but not all studies. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the association between visit-to-visit variability of BP and CVD and all-cause mortality. Medical databases were searched through June 4, 2014, for studies meeting the following eligibility criteria: adult participants; BP measurements at ≥3 visits; follow-up for CVD, coronary heart disease, stroke, or mortality outcomes; events confirmed via database, death certificate, or event ascertainment committee; and adjustment for confounders. Data were extracted by 2 reviewers and pooled using a random-effects model. Overall, 8870 abstracts were identified of which 37 studies, representing 41 separate cohorts, met inclusion criteria. Across studies, visit-to-visit variability of systolic BP and diastolic BP showed significant associations with outcomes in 181 of 312 (58.0%) and 61 of 188 (32.4%) analyses, respectively. Few studies provided sufficient data for pooling risk estimates. For each 5 mm Hg higher SD of systolic BP, the pooled hazard ratio for stroke across 7 cohorts was 1.17 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-1.28), for coronary heart disease across 4 cohorts was 1.27 (95% CI, 1.07-1.51), for CVD across 5 cohorts was 1.12 (95% CI, 0.98-1.28), for CVD mortality across 5 cohorts was 1.22 (95% CI, 1.09-1.35), and for all-cause mortality across 4 cohorts was 1.20 (95% CI, 1.05-1.36). In summary, modest associations between visit-to-visit variability of BP and CVD and all-cause mortality are present in published studies. However, these findings are limited by the small amount of data available for meta-analysis.
Topics: Blood Pressure; Blood Pressure Monitors; Cardiovascular Diseases; Coronary Disease; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Incidence; Mortality; Office Visits; Risk Factors; Stroke; Survival Rate
PubMed: 25069669
DOI: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.114.03903 -
JMIR MHealth and UHealth May 2022In the era of digital health information technology, there has been a proliferation of devices that collect patient-generated health data (PGHD), including consumer... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
In the era of digital health information technology, there has been a proliferation of devices that collect patient-generated health data (PGHD), including consumer blood pressure (BP) monitors. Despite their widespread use, it remains unclear whether such devices can improve health outcomes.
OBJECTIVE
We performed a systematic review of the literature on consumer BP monitors that collect PGHD for managing hypertension to summarize their clinical impact on health and surrogate outcomes. We focused particularly on studies designed to measure the specific effect of using a BP monitor independent of cointerventions. We have also summarized the process and consumer experience outcomes.
METHODS
An information specialist searched PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase for controlled studies on consumer BP monitors published up to May 12, 2020. We assessed the risk of bias using an adapted 9-item appraisal tool and performed a narrative synthesis of the results.
RESULTS
We identified 41 different types of BP monitors used in 49 studies included for review. Device engineers judged that 38 (92%) of those devices were similar to the currently available consumer BP monitors. The median sample size was 222 (IQR 101-416) participants, and the median length of follow-up was 6 (IQR 3-12) months. Of the included studies, 18 (36%) were designed to isolate the clinical effects of BP monitors; 6 of the 18 (33%) studies evaluated health outcomes (eg, mortality, hospitalizations, and quality of life), and data on those outcomes were unclear. The lack of clarity was due to low event rates, short follow-up duration, and risk of bias. All 18 studies that isolated the effect of BP monitors measured both systolic and diastolic BP and generally demonstrated a decrease of 2 to 4 mm Hg in systolic BP and 1 to 3 mm Hg in diastolic BP compared with non-BP monitor groups. Adherence to using consumer BP monitors ranged from 38% to 89%, and ease of use and satisfaction ratings were generally high. Adverse events were infrequent, but there were a few technical problems with devices (eg, incorrect device alerts).
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, BP monitors offer small benefits in terms of BP reduction; however, the health impact of these devices continues to remain unclear. Future studies are needed to examine the effectiveness of BP monitors that transmit data to health care providers. Additional data from implementation studies may help determine which components are critical for sustained BP improvement, which in turn may improve prescription decisions by clinicians and coverage decisions by policy makers.
Topics: Blood Pressure; Blood Pressure Monitors; Humans; Hypertension; Quality of Life; Sphygmomanometers
PubMed: 35499862
DOI: 10.2196/33261 -
Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) Feb 2018The accurate measurement of blood pressure (BP) in pregnancy is essential to guide medical decision making that affects both mother and fetus. The aim of this systematic... (Review)
Review
The accurate measurement of blood pressure (BP) in pregnancy is essential to guide medical decision making that affects both mother and fetus. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the accuracy of ambulatory, home, and clinic BP measurement devices in pregnant women. We searched Ovid MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CINAHL EBSCO, ClinicalTrials.gov, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and dabl from inception through August 3, 2017 for articles that assessed the validity of an upper arm BP measurement device against a mercury sphygmomanometer in pregnant women. Two independent investigators determined eligibility, extracted data, and adjudicated protocol violations. From 1798 potential articles identified, 41, that assessed 28 devices, met the inclusion criteria. Most articles (n=32) followed a standard or modified American National Standards Institute/Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation/International Organization for Standardization, British Hypertension Society, or European Society of Hypertension validation protocol. Several articles described the results of validation studies performed on >1 device (n=7) or in >1 population of pregnant women (n=12), comprising 64 pairwise validity assessments. The device was validated in 61% (32 of 52) of studies which used a standard or modified protocol. Only 34% (11 of 32) of the studies wherein the device was successfully validated were performed without a protocol violation. Given the implications of inaccurate BP measurement in pregnant women, healthcare providers should be aware of and try to use the BP measurement devices which have been properly validated in this population.
Topics: Blood Pressure; Blood Pressure Determination; Equipment Design; Female; Humans; Hypertension; Pregnancy; Reference Standards; Reproducibility of Results; Validation Studies as Topic
PubMed: 29229741
DOI: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.117.10295 -
Scientific Reports Mar 2022This study aims to systematically review the diagnostic accuracy of a digital blood pressure measurement device compared to the gold standard mercury sphygmomanometer in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
This study aims to systematically review the diagnostic accuracy of a digital blood pressure measurement device compared to the gold standard mercury sphygmomanometer in published studies. Searches were conducted in PubMed, Cochrane, EBSCO, EMBASE and Google Scholar host databases using the specific search strategy and filters from 1st January 2000 to 3rd April 2021. We included studies reporting data on the sensitivity or specificity of blood pressure measured by digital devices and mercury sphygmomanometer used as the reference standard. Studies conducted among children, special populations, and specific disease groups were excluded. We considered published manuscripts in the English language only. The risk of bias and applicability concerns were assessed based on the author's judgment using the QUADAS2 manual measurement evaluation tool. Based on the screening, four studies were included in the final analysis. Sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and 95% confidence interval were estimated. The digital blood pressure monitoring has a moderate level of accuracy and the device can correctly distinguish hypertension with a pooled estimate sensitivity of 65.7% and specificity of 95.9%. After removing one study, which had very low sensitivity and very high specificity, the pooled sensitivity estimate was 79%, and the specificity was 91%. The meta-analysis of DOR suggests that the digital blood pressure monitor had moderate accuracy with a mercury sphygmomanometer. This will provide the clinician and patients with accurate information on blood pressure with which diagnostic and treatment decisions could be made.
Topics: Blood Pressure; Blood Pressure Determination; Child; Humans; Mercury; Sensitivity and Specificity; Sphygmomanometers
PubMed: 35233077
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-07315-z -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2016Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) of the lower limb is common, with prevalence of both symptomatic and asymptomatic disease estimated at 13% in the over 50 age group.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) of the lower limb is common, with prevalence of both symptomatic and asymptomatic disease estimated at 13% in the over 50 age group. Symptomatic PAD affects about 5% of individuals in Western populations between the ages of 55 and 74 years. The most common initial symptom of PAD is muscle pain on exercise that is relieved by rest and is attributed to reduced lower limb blood flow due to atherosclerotic disease (intermittent claudication). The ankle brachial index (ABI) is widely used by a variety of healthcare professionals, including specialist nurses, physicians, surgeons and podiatrists working in primary and secondary care settings, to assess signs and symptoms of PAD. As the ABI test is non-invasive and inexpensive and is in widespread clinical use, a systematic review of its diagnostic accuracy in people presenting with leg pain suggestive of PAD is highly relevant to routine clinical practice.
OBJECTIVES
To estimate the diagnostic accuracy of the ankle brachial index (ABI) - also known as the ankle brachial pressure index (ABPI) - for the diagnosis of peripheral arterial disease in people who experience leg pain on walking that is alleviated by rest.
SEARCH METHODS
We carried out searches of the following databases in August 2013: MEDLINE (Ovid SP),Embase (Ovid SP), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (EBSCO), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences (LILACS) (Bireme), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and the Health Technology Assessment Database in The Cochrane Library, the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science, the British Library Zetoc Conference search and Medion.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included cross-sectional studies of ABI in which duplex ultrasonography or angiography was used as the reference standard. We also included cross-sectional or diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) cohort studies consisting of both prospective and retrospective studies.Participants were adults presenting with leg pain on walking that was relieved by rest, who were tested in primary care settings or secondary care settings (hospital outpatients only) and who did not have signs or symptoms of critical limb ischaemia (rest pain, ischaemic ulcers or gangrene).The index test was ABI, also called the ankle brachial pressure index (ABPI) or the Ankle Arm Index (AAI), which was performed with a hand-held doppler or oscillometry device to detect ankle vessels. We included data collected via sphygmomanometers (both manual and aneroid) and digital equipment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently replicated data extraction by using a standard form, which included an assessment of study quality, and resolved disagreements by discussion. Two review authors extracted participant-level data when available to populate 2×2 contingency tables (true positives, true negatives, false positives and false negatives).After a pilot phase involving two review authors working independently, we used the methodological quality assessment tool the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2), which incorporated our review question - along with a flow diagram to aid reviewers' understanding of the conduct of the study when necessary and an assessment of risk of bias and applicability judgements.
MAIN RESULTS
We screened 17,055 records identified through searches of databases. We obtained 746 full-text articles and assessed them for relevance. We scrutinised 49 studies to establish their eligibility for inclusion in the review and excluded 48, primarily because participants were not patients presenting solely with exertional leg pain, investigators used no reference standard or investigators used neither angiography nor duplex ultrasonography as the reference standard. We excluded most studies for more than one reason.Only one study met the eligibility criteria and provided limb-level accuracy data from just 85 participants (158 legs). This prospective study compared the manual doppler method of obtaining an ABI (performed by untrained personnel) with the automated oscillometric method. Limb-level data, as reported by the study, indicated that the accuracy of the ABI in detecting significant arterial disease on angiography is superior when stenosis is present in the femoropopliteal vessels, with sensitivity of 97% (95% confidence interval (CI) 93% to 99%) and specificity of 89% (95% CI 67% to 95%) for oscillometric ABI, and sensitivity of 95% (95% CI 89% to 97%) and specificity of 56% (95% CI 33% to 70%) for doppler ABI. The ABI threshold was not reported. Investigators attributed the lower specificity for doppler to the fact that a tibial or dorsalis pedis pulse could not be detected by doppler in 12 of 27 legs with normal vessels or non-significant lesions. The superiority of the oscillometric (automated) method for obtaining an ABI reading over the manual method with a doppler probe used by inexperienced operators may be a clinically important finding.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Evidence about the accuracy of the ankle brachial index for the diagnosis of PAD in people with leg pain on exercise that is alleviated by rest is sparse. The single study included in our review provided only limb-level data from a few participants. Well-designed cross-sectional studies are required to evaluate the accuracy of ABI in patients presenting with early symptoms of peripheral arterial disease in all healthcare settings. Another systematic review of existing studies assessing the use of ABI in alternative patient groups, including asymptomatic, high-risk patients, is required.
PubMed: 27623758
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010680.pub2 -
Journal of Human Hypertension Jul 2010The aim of this study is to systematically examine the proportion of accurate readings attained by automatic digital blood pressure (BP) devices in published validation... (Review)
Review
The aim of this study is to systematically examine the proportion of accurate readings attained by automatic digital blood pressure (BP) devices in published validation studies. We included studies of automatic digital BP devices using recognized protocols. We summarized the data as mean and s.d. of differences between measured and observed BP, and proportion of measurements within 5 mm Hg. We included 79 articles (10,783 participants) reporting 113 studies from 22 different countries. Overall, 25/31 (81%), 37/41 (90%) and 34/35 (97%) devices passed the relevant protocols [BHS, AAMI and ESH international protocol (ESH-IP), respectively]. For devices that passed the BHS protocol, the proportion of measured values within 5 mm Hg of the observed value ranged from 60 to 86% (AAMI protocol 47-94% and ESH-IP 54-89%). The results for the same device varied significantly when a different protocol was used (Omron HEM-907 80% of readings were within 5 mm Hg using the AAMI protocol compared with 62% with the ESH-IP). Even devices with a mean difference of zero show high variation: a device with 74% of BP measurements within 5 mm Hg would require six further BP measurements to reduce variation to 95% of readings within 5 mm Hg. Current protocols for validating BP monitors give no guarantee of accuracy in clinical practice. Devices may pass even the most rigorous protocol with as few as 60% of readings within 5 mm Hg of the observed value. Multiple readings are essential to provide clinicians and patients with accurate information on which to base diagnostic and treatment decisions.
Topics: Blood Pressure Monitors; Humans; Hypertension; Reproducibility of Results; Validation Studies as Topic
PubMed: 20376077
DOI: 10.1038/jhh.2010.37 -
Environmental Health Insights 2024Nosocomial pathogens are known to exacerbate morbidity and mortality in contemporary critical healthcare. Hospital fomites, which include inanimate surfaces, have been... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Nosocomial pathogens are known to exacerbate morbidity and mortality in contemporary critical healthcare. Hospital fomites, which include inanimate surfaces, have been identified as "breeding grounds" for pathogens that cause nosocomial infections. This systematic review aimed to deliver incisive insights on nosocomial pathogens in intensive care units (ICUs) and the role of fomites as potential reservoirs for their transmission.
METHOD
An extensive exploration of electronic databases, including PubMed and Scopus, from 1990 to 2023, was carried out between 25 and 29 May 2023, per standard PRISMA guidelines. Information were extracted from articles that reported on fomites in the ICU. Studies that did not quantitatively report the fomite contamination, and those that exclusively took samples from patients in the ICU were excluded from the analysis.
RESULTS
About 40% of the total samples collected on fomites from all the studies yielded microbial growth, with species of being the most predominant. Other prevalent microbes were , , , spp., sp., and sp. The neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) had the highest proportion of contaminated fomites. Among known fomites, the sphygmomanometer exhibited a 100% detection rate of nosocomial pathogens. This included , , coagulase-negative (CoNS), , and Multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria, such as methicillin-resistant (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant (VRE), extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing , and MDR were commonly isolated on fomites in the ICUs.
CONCLUSION
Many fomites that are readily used in patient care in the ICU harbour nosocomial pathogens. The most common fomite appeared to be mobile phones, sphygmomanometers, and stethoscopes, with being the most common contaminant. Consequently, the need for rigorous disinfection and sterilization protocols on fomites in the ICU cannot be overemphasized. Additionally, heightened awareness on the subject among health professionals is crucial to mitigating the risk and burden of nosocomial infections caused by drug-resistant bacteria.
PubMed: 38828046
DOI: 10.1177/11786302241243239