ArticlePloS one2026
Screen-detected raised blood pressure and gaps in the hypertension care cascade among adults attending a humanitarian medical mission in Ukraine: A cross-sectional study.
Article in PloS one, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiovascular disease is the world's leading cause of death, and raised blood pressure is among its most important modifiable contributors. Conflict tends to interrupt the long-term care that hypertension demands, yet little screening data exist from settings of active conflict. We set out to describe screen-detected raised blood pressure, and the hypertension care cascade, among adults seen at a humanitarian medical mission in Ukraine. In this cross-sectional study we included adults (≥ 18 years) seen consecutively at a MacKay Memorial Hospital mission across three Ukrainian sites in April 2026. Blood pressure was taken once, and we counted a participant as having raised blood pressure if that single reading was ≥ 140/90 mmHg or they reported a previous hypertension diagnosis. Prevalence is reported with Wilson 95% confidence intervals and standardized to the World Health Organization world population; adjusted prevalence ratios come from modified Poisson regression with robust variance. For the cardiovascular screening stream we also described awareness, treatment, and control. Of 364 adults (mean age 52.5 years; 63.2% women), 65.7% of the 341 with complete outcome data had raised blood pressure on the crude estimate (95% confidence interval 60.5-70.5), falling to 54.7% (48.1-61.3) after age standardization. Prevalence climbed with age and was higher in men. Older age (adjusted prevalence ratio 1.19 per 10 years, 1.11-1.27), male sex (1.26, 1.08-1.47), and obesity (1.24, 1.09-1.42) were each independently associated with the outcome. Within the screening stream, 74.6% of those with raised blood pressure were aware, 58.8% were treated, and just 15.8% were controlled; estimates held across multiple imputation and alternative specifications. This was a self-selected sample assessed on a single reading and cannot speak to population prevalence, but the pattern-common raised blood pressure with poor control-makes a reasonable case for building simple screening and a clear referral pathway into missions of this kind.
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.