Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36711409›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in public health2022

Short-term efficacy of non-pharmacological interventions for global population with elevated blood pressure: A network meta-analysis.

Taihang Shao, Leyi Liang, Chengchao Zhou, Yaqian Tang, Wenqing Gao, Yusi Tu, Yue Yin, Daniel C Malone, Wenxi Tang

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Taihang ShaoCenter for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, China.
Leyi LiangCenter for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, China.
Chengchao ZhouCentre for Health Management and Policy Research, School of Public Health, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, China.
Yaqian TangCenter for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, China.
Wenqing GaoCenter for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, China.
Yusi TuCenter for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, China.
Yue YinCenter for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, China.
Daniel C MaloneDepartment of Pharmacotherapy, College of Pharmacy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, United States.
Wenxi TangCenter for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, China.
China Pharmaceutical University · CNShandong University · CNUniversity of Utah · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: This study aims to compare the potential short-term effects of non-pharmacological interventions (NPIs) on prehypertensive people, and provide evidence for intervention models with potential in future community-based management. Methods: In this Bayesian network meta-analysis, Pubmed, Embase, and Web of science were screened up to 16 October 2021. Prehypertensive patients (systolic blood pressure, SBP 120-139 mmHg/diastolic blood pressure, DBP 80-89 mmHg) with a follow-up period longer than 4 weeks were targeted. Sixteen NPIs were identified during the scope review and categorized into five groups. Reduction in SBP and DBP was selected as outcome variables and the effect sizes were compared using consistency models among interventions and intervention groups. Grade approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence. Results: Thirty-nine studies with 8,279 participants were included. For SBP, strengthen exercises were the most advantageous intervention group when compared with usual care (mean difference = -6.02 mmHg, 95% CI -8.16 to -3.87), and combination exercise, isometric exercise, and aerobic exercise were the three most effective specific interventions. For DBP, relaxation was the most advantageous intervention group when compared with usual care (mean difference = -4.99 mmHg, 95% CI -7.03 to -2.96), and acupuncture, meditation, and combination exercise were the three most effective specific interventions. No inconsistency was found between indirect and direct evidence. However, heterogeneity was detected in some studies. Conclusion: NPIs can bring short-term BP reduction benefits for prehypertensive patients, especially exercise and relaxation. NPIs could potentially be included in community-based disease management for prehypertensive population once long-term real-world effectiveness and cost-effectiveness are proven. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=151518, identifier: CRD42020151518.

Indexed as

HypertensionBayes TheoremBlood PressureExercise TherapyHumansBayesian network meta-analysisblood pressure reductionchronic disease managementnon-pharmacological interventionprehypertension

Identifiers

PMID36711409
PMCPMC9880179
OpenAlexW4315784113

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.