Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28122035›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2017

Assessing Sex Differences in the Risk of Cardiovascular Disease and Mortality per Increment in Systolic Blood Pressure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Follow-Up Studies in the United States.

Yu-Chung Wei, Nysia I George, Ching-Wei Chang, Karen A Hicks

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

47 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Sex stratified analysis of patients with resistant hypertension from the Global SYMPLICITY Registry of renal denervation.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Physiology of sedentary behavior.Physiological reviews · 2023
    Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Yu-Chung WeiDivision of Bioinformatics and Biostatistics, National Center for Toxicological Research, United States Food and Drug Administration, Jefferson, Arkansas, United States of America.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3747-2215
Nysia I GeorgeDivision of Bioinformatics and Biostatistics, National Center for Toxicological Research, United States Food and Drug Administration, Jefferson, Arkansas, United States of America.
Ching-Wei ChangDivision of Bioinformatics and Biostatistics, National Center for Toxicological Research, United States Food and Drug Administration, Jefferson, Arkansas, United States of America.
Karen A HicksOffice of Drug Evaluation I, Division of Cardiovascular and Renal Products, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, United States Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the United States (US), cardiovascular (CV) disease accounts for nearly 20% of national health care expenses. Since costs are expected to increase with the aging population, informative research is necessary to address the growing burden of CV disease and sex-related differences in diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes. Hypertension is a major risk factor for CV disease and mortality. To evaluate whether there are sex-related differences in the effect of systolic blood pressure (SBP) on the risk of CV disease and mortality, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. We conducted a comprehensive search using PubMed and Google Scholar to identify US-based studies published prior to 31 December, 2015. We identified eight publications for CV disease risk, which provided 9 female and 8 male effect size (ES) observations. We also identified twelve publications for CV mortality, which provided 10 female and 18 male ES estimates. Our meta-analysis estimated that the pooled ES for increased risk of CV disease per 10 mmHg increment in SBP was 25% for women (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.18, 1.32) and 15% for men (95% CI: 1.11, 1.19). The pooled increase in CV mortality per 10 mm Hg SBP increment was similar for both women and men (Women: 1.16; 95% CI: 1.10, 1.23; Men: 1.17; 95% CI: 1.12, 1.22). After adjusting for age and baseline SBP, the results demonstrated that the risk of CV disease per 10 mm Hg SBP increment for women was 1.1-fold higher than men (P<0.01; 95% CI: 1.04, 1.17). Heterogeneity was moderate but significant. There was no significant sex difference in CV mortality.

Indexed as

Blood PressureSex FactorsAdultAgedCardiovascular DiseasesFemaleHumansHypertensionMaleMiddle AgedModels, CardiovascularRiskSystoleUnited States

Identifiers

PMID28122035
PMCPMC5266379

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.