SynthesisJournal of human hypertension2021
Prevalence of high blood pressure under 2017 ACC/AHA guidelines: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of human hypertension, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Implications of the 2025 AHA/ACC hypertension guideline on hypertension prevalence, treatment eligibility and blood pressure control in Nigeria: a cross-sectional comparative study.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Helicobacter pylori seroprevalence and its association with prevalent and incident blood pressure and haemoglobin A1c in the US-based National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Late Deprescribing of Angiotensin-Converting-Enzyme Inhibitors and Renin-Angiotensin Blockers in Patients with Advanced Cancer Receiving Palliative Care.Palliative medicine reports · 2025Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To understand the prevalence of high blood pressure among the general adult population under the new diagnostic criteria. PubMed and Embase databases were systematically searched. Two investigators independently performed data extraction and quality assessment, and the disagreements were resolved by consensus with a third investigator. The random-effects model was performed to pool the prevalence of high blood pressure among the population. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses were performed to explore the source of heterogeneity. The study protocol has been registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42019147330. In total, 52 articles included in the meta-analysis with a total of 54 studies. An obvious increase in the prevalence of high blood pressure was identified by the application of new diagnostic criteria. The pooled prevalence of high blood pressure among the population was 53.01% (95% confidence interval 51.13-54.88%). Subgroup analysis showed that the WHO region, national, and age could significantly influence the prevalence of hypertension (P < 0.01). Meta-regression analyses revealed that study quality and sex ratio (male, %) did not contribute to the heterogeneity of the results (P > 0.05). The sensitivity analysis showed that the results were stable. With the use of new diagnostic criteria, the prevalence of high blood pressure has shown an upward trend, especially in Europe countries. Prevention and control measures should focus more on improving cardiovascular and cerebrovascular status in Europe countries. Standard electronic blood pressure monitors were recommended for use in future studies, and at least two more readings should be taken during a visit.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.