ReviewFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Risk stratification of hypertension in South Africa: a systematic review with meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Hypertension is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in South Africa. Evidence on risk factors is scattered across study designs, limiting clinical decision support. This review synthesizes evidence to classify hypertension risk factors to strengthen prediction models and prevention strategies through causal integration. Methods: A systematic review followed PRISMA 2020, searching PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Medline, CINAHL, and SABINET. Two independent reviewers screened and extracted data. Narrative synthesis and meta-analysis were performed, and risk factors were classified within a framework. Causal pathways were mapped using directed acyclic diagram. Results: Eleven studies with 49,058 participants from nine provinces were included. Strongest risk factors were advanced age (OR: 3.67, CI 1.7-7.6) and diabetes (OR: 1.85, CI 1.39-2.46), followed by low education (OR: 1.75, CI 1.56-2.00), ethnicity (OR: 1.57, CI 1.23-2.01), and socioeconomic status (OR: 1.14, CI 1.01-1.30). Critical risk thresholds (Rw: 3.8 and 5.5) correspond to the 75th and 50th percentiles. A prediction model (Age-Ethnicity-Diabetes) achieved Rw 6.0 and net GTT 2.49. Higher education, improved socio-economic status, and diabetes management were primary prevention strategies (Rw: 4.71, net GTT: 2.49). Age and diabetes emerged as "necessary causes". Conclusion: Older adults (≥50 years), individuals with diabetes, mixed-race ethnicity, and lower socioeconomic status are priority groups. Screening should be prompted by age and diabetes. Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251026501, PROSPERO ID: CRD420251026501.
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.