SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Identification of cognitive impairment in patients with hypertension: a systematic review and critical appraisal of existing models.
Synthesis in Frontiers in 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Hypertension is strongly associated with cognitive impairment. Existing tools include models designed to identify prevalent cognitive impairment and a smaller number developed to predict future risk. However, their methodological quality, validation status, and reproducibility have not been systematically assessed. We conducted a systematic review and critical appraisal of existing models designed to identify cognitive impairment in patients with hypertension. Methods: Chinese and English databases were searched from inception to December 23, 2025. Studies that developed, updated, or validated a multivariable model, nomogram, score, or machine-learning tool for cognitive impairment, mild cognitive impairment, cognitive decline, subjective cognitive decline, or dementia among adults with hypertension were included. Data were extracted using CHARMS, and risk of bias was assessed with PROBAST. The synthesis emphasized model purpose, temporality, outcome definition, discrimination, calibration, validation, risk of bias, and reproducibility. Reported c-statistics were summarized descriptively because of substantial heterogeneity in study design, outcome definitions, cognitive assessment tools, and repeated model estimates from the same datasets. Results: Seventeen studies reporting 25 models were included. Most models were developed in China using cross-sectional data, with cognitive outcomes assessed using varied instruments. Reported AUCs ranged from 0.344 to 0.938; most multivariable models exceeded 0.70. Internal validation was reported in 15 studies, whereas only four conducted external validation and 11 assessed calibration. Sixteen studies were judged at high risk of bias. Reproducibility was limited: four studies provided sufficient information for independent calculation, eight were partially reproducible, and five were insufficiently reported. Common predictors included older age, lower education, depression, obesity, longer hypertension duration, greater hypertension severity, and adverse metabolic indicators. Discussion: Existing models show some ability to distinguish hypertensive patients with and without cognitive impairment, while evidence supporting future-risk prediction remains limited. Future work should prioritize prospective cohorts, standardized outcome definitions, external validation, calibration, and transparent reporting of equations, intercepts, scoring rules, code, and model objects. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251157136, identifier CRD420251157136.
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.