0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Effect of Antihypertensive Treatment on Cerebral Blood Flow in Older Adults: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background:

          In older age, the benefits of antihypertensive treatment (AHT) become less evident, with greater associated risk. Of particular concern is compromising cerebral blood flow (CBF), especially in those with cognitive impairment.

          Methods:

          We created a synthesis of the published evidence by searching multiple electronic databases from 1970 to May 2021. Included studies had participants with mean age ≥50 years, hypertension or cognitive impairment, and assessed CBF before and after initiating AHT. Two authors independently determined eligibility and extracted data. Study quality was assessed using The Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions tool. We summarized study characteristics (qualitative synthesis) and performed random-effects meta-analyses (quantitative synthesis).

          Results:

          Thirty-two studies (total n=1306) were included, of which 23 were eligible for meta-analysis. In line with the qualitative synthesis, the meta-analysis indicated no effect of AHT initiation on CBF (standardized mean difference, 0.08 [95% CI, −0.07 to 0.22]; P=0.31, I 2=42%). This was consistent across subgroups of acute versus chronic AHT, drug class, study design, and CBF measurement. Subgroups by age demonstrated an increase in CBF after AHT in those aged >70 years (standardized mean difference, 4.15 [95% CI, 0.16–8.15]; P=0.04, I 2 =42%), but not in those aged 50 to 65 and 65 to 70 years (standardized mean difference, 0.18 [95% CI,−2.02 to 2.38]; P=0.87, I 2 =49%; standardized mean difference, 1.22 [95% CI, −0.45 to 2.88]; P=0.15, I 2 =68%). Overall, risk of bias was moderate-to-high and quality of evidence (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) was very low, reflecting the observational nature of the data.

          Conclusions:

          Accepting the observed limitations, current evidence does not suggest a harmful effect of AHT on CBF. Concerns over CBF should not preclude treatment of hypertension.

          Related collections

          Most cited references71

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews

          Background Synthesis of multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in a systematic review can summarize the effects of individual outcomes and provide numerical answers about the effectiveness of interventions. Filtering of searches is time consuming, and no single method fulfills the principal requirements of speed with accuracy. Automation of systematic reviews is driven by a necessity to expedite the availability of current best evidence for policy and clinical decision-making. We developed Rayyan (http://rayyan.qcri.org), a free web and mobile app, that helps expedite the initial screening of abstracts and titles using a process of semi-automation while incorporating a high level of usability. For the beta testing phase, we used two published Cochrane reviews in which included studies had been selected manually. Their searches, with 1030 records and 273 records, were uploaded to Rayyan. Different features of Rayyan were tested using these two reviews. We also conducted a survey of Rayyan’s users and collected feedback through a built-in feature. Results Pilot testing of Rayyan focused on usability, accuracy against manual methods, and the added value of the prediction feature. The “taster” review (273 records) allowed a quick overview of Rayyan for early comments on usability. The second review (1030 records) required several iterations to identify the previously identified 11 trials. The “suggestions” and “hints,” based on the “prediction model,” appeared as testing progressed beyond five included studies. Post rollout user experiences and a reflexive response by the developers enabled real-time modifications and improvements. The survey respondents reported 40% average time savings when using Rayyan compared to others tools, with 34% of the respondents reporting more than 50% time savings. In addition, around 75% of the respondents mentioned that screening and labeling studies as well as collaborating on reviews to be the two most important features of Rayyan. As of November 2016, Rayyan users exceed 2000 from over 60 countries conducting hundreds of reviews totaling more than 1.6M citations. Feedback from users, obtained mostly through the app web site and a recent survey, has highlighted the ease in exploration of searches, the time saved, and simplicity in sharing and comparing include-exclude decisions. The strongest features of the app, identified and reported in user feedback, were its ability to help in screening and collaboration as well as the time savings it affords to users. Conclusions Rayyan is responsive and intuitive in use with significant potential to lighten the load of reviewers.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions

            Non-randomised studies of the effects of interventions are critical to many areas of healthcare evaluation, but their results may be biased. It is therefore important to understand and appraise their strengths and weaknesses. We developed ROBINS-I (“Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions”), a new tool for evaluating risk of bias in estimates of the comparative effectiveness (harm or benefit) of interventions from studies that did not use randomisation to allocate units (individuals or clusters of individuals) to comparison groups. The tool will be particularly useful to those undertaking systematic reviews that include non-randomised studies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Hypertension
                Hypertension
                HYP
                Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979)
                Lippincott Williams & Wilkins (Hagerstown, MD )
                0194-911X
                1524-4563
                23 February 2022
                May 2022
                : 79
                : 5
                : 1067-1078
                Affiliations
                [1]Radboud university medical center, Donders Institute for Brain Cognition and Behaviour, Department of Geriatric Medicine, Radboudumc Alzheimer Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (A.E.v.R., B.C.S., M.L.S., J.A.H.R.C., R.A.A.d.H.).
                [2]Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Leicester, United Kingdom (L.C.B.).
                [3]Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow, United Kingdom (T.J.Q.).
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: Jurgen A.H.R. Claassen, Radboud university medical center, P.O. Box 9101 (925), 6500 HB Nijmegen, the Netherlands. Email jurgen.claassen@ 123456radboudumc.nl
                Article
                00020
                10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.121.18255
                8997667
                35193363
                28bd8966-ccea-4193-98ad-931e23ec13ee
                © 2022 The Authors.

                Hypertension is published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original work is properly cited, the use is noncommercial, and no modifications or adaptations are made.

                History
                : 15 August 2021
                : 21 January 2022
                Categories
                10111
                10128
                10155
                10160
                10176
                Original Articles
                Custom metadata
                TRUE
                T

                cerebrovascular circulation,cerebral blood flow,dementia,emission-computed,hypertension,tomography,vascular diseases

                Comments

                Comment on this article