SynthesisReviews in cardiovascular medicine2024
Gender and Social Connections as Determinants of Hypertension: A Systematic Review of Longitudinal Studies.
Synthesis in Reviews in cardiovascular medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress: A Novel Target for the Prevention and Treatment of Hypertension and Its Related Diseases.Journal of cellular and molecular medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Social connections impact cardiovascular diseases (CVD) morbidity and mortality, but their role in hypertension, as a CVD risk factor, and their gender inequities is less understood. This review aimed to examine the longitudinal evidence on the impact of changes in social connections on risk of hypertension among aging adults, with a specific focus on gender. Methods: A systematic search of peer-reviewed literature in Medline, Embase, Scopus, and CINAHL conducted until 10 June 2024. Prospective studies evaluating the effect of changes in living arrangement, marital status, social network, or social participation on changes in blood pressure or incident hypertension among adults aged 45 and above were included. Results: We found 20,026 records (13,381 duplicates), resulting in 6645 eligible titles/abstracts for screening and 29 texts read in full. Only six studies from three countries met inclusion criteria, with four focused on marital transitions and two on changes in living arrangement. Overall, loss of close social connections had mixed effects on changes in blood pressure or risk of hypertension. More consistent adverse CVD outcomes were observed across studies for aging adults who entered marriage or became co-living (gain of close social connections). Similarly, persistent lack of close social connections appeared to result in greater increases in blood pressure or higher risk of hypertension. Two included studies were of high quality and the rest were medium quality. Excluded studies assessing change in either CVD risk or social tie transitions were also described (n = 9). Conclusions: There is a surprising paucity of prospective evidence on social relationships as determinants of CVD risk in the aging population, despite ample research on social factors correlated with health. Limited research suggests that both gains and losses of close social connections as well as persistent lack of close social connections may alter CVD risk, but effects are specific to single-sex samples. Research and policy should prioritize causally robust high-quality studies to unravel social determinants of CVD risk as actionable evidence to inform social prescribing in CVD prevention and healthy aging strategies is still tenuous. The PROSPERO Registration: CRD42022373196, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=373196.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.