Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35652330›Full record

SynthesisHypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979)2022

Performance of Confirmatory Tests for Diagnosing Primary Aldosteronism: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Alexander A Leung, Christopher J Symonds, Gregory L Hundemer, Paul E Ronksley, Diane L Lorenzetti, Janice L Pasieka, Adrian Harvey, Gregory A Kline

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 71 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Primary aldosteronism.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Is It Time to Retire Aldosterone Suppression Testing?American journal of hypertension · 2026
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Real world experience with [Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Alexander A Leung *Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Medicine (A.A.L., C.J.S., G.A.K.), University of Calgary, AB.ORCID 0000-0002-7536-8497
Christopher J Symonds *Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Medicine (A.A.L., C.J.S., G.A.K.), University of Calgary, AB.
Gregory L HundemerDivision of Nephrology, Department of Medicine and the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, ON (G.L.H.).ORCID 0000-0003-3559-3531
Paul E RonksleyDepartment of Community Health Sciences (A.A.L., P.E.R., D.L.L.), University of Calgary, AB.ORCID 0000-0002-3958-7561
Diane L LorenzettiDepartment of Community Health Sciences (A.A.L., P.E.R., D.L.L.), University of Calgary, AB.ORCID 0000-0001-8423-3458
Janice L PasiekaDepartment of Surgery (J.L.P., A.H.), University of Calgary, AB.ORCID 0000-0003-2753-4988
Adrian HarveyDepartment of Surgery (J.L.P., A.H.), University of Calgary, AB.
Gregory A KlineDivision of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Medicine (A.A.L., C.J.S., G.A.K.), University of Calgary, AB.ORCID 0000-0002-8129-9360
University of Calgary · CAAlberta Health Services · CAOttawa Hospital · CA

Funding

CIHR PJT-15953
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConfirmatory tests are recommended for diagnosing primary aldosteronism, but the supporting evidence is unclear.

methodsWe searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Studies evaluating any guideline-recommended confirmatory test (ie, saline infusion test, salt loading test, fludrocortisone suppression test, and captopril challenge test), compared with a reference standard were included. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Meta-analyses were conducted using hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic models.

resultsFifty-five studies were included, comprising 26 studies (3654 participants) for the recumbent saline infusion test, 4 studies (633 participants) for the seated saline infusion test, 2 studies (99 participants) for the salt loading test, 7 studies (386 participants) for the fludrocortisone suppression test, and 25 studies (2585 participants) for the captopril challenge test. Risk of bias was high, affecting more than half of studies, and across all domains. Studies with case-control sampling overestimated accuracy by 7-fold (relative diagnostic odds ratio, 7.26 [95% CI, 2.46-21.43]) and partial verification or use of inconsistent reference standards overestimated accuracy by 5-fold (5.12 [95% CI, 1.48-17.77]). There were large variations in how confirmatory tests were conducted, interpreted, and verified. Under most scenarios, confirmatory testing resulted in an excess of missed cases. The certainty of evidence underlying each test (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) was very low.

conclusionsRecommendations for confirmatory testing in patients with abnormal screening tests and high probability features of primary aldosteronism are based on very low-quality evidence and their routine use should be reconsidered.

Indexed as

CaptoprilHyperaldosteronismFludrocortisoneHumansROC CurveSensitivity and SpecificityCaptoprilFludrocortisonealdosteronecaptoprilfludrocortisonephenotypeprevalence

Identifiers

PMID35652330
PMCPMC9278709
OpenAlexW4282922351

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.