SynthesisFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2025
Predictive variables and diagnostic performance of cross-sectional models for hypertension detection: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2025. 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.
- Development and Temporal Validation of a Multinomial Prediction Model for Phenotypes of Undiagnosed Hypertension in Peru: A Population-Based Study.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
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
Introduction: Hypertension (HTN) affects approximately 1.3 billion people worldwide, nearly half of whom remain undiagnosed, underscoring the urgent need for efficient diagnostic models to enable timely detection. This study aimed to identify and critically evaluate cross-sectional predictive models developed for diagnosing hypertension in adults globally. Methods: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and TRIPOD guidelines, searching MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and EMBASE from January 2000 to March 2024. We included observational studies that developed or validated cross-sectional models for adult HTN detection. The risk of bias was assessed using the PROBAST (Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool). Results: Eight studies met the inclusion criteria, predominantly from Asia (four from China, one from Korea, one from Qatar, one from the United Arab Emirates, and one from Bangladesh). The models demonstrated acceptable discriminatory capacity [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) 0.70-0.89], with minimal differences between traditional statistical approaches (logistic regression) and machine learning methods. The most consistent predictors were age (present in >90% of models), body mass index (85%-90%), sex/gender (75%-80%), and diabetes (70%-75%). Laboratory biomarkers provided only marginal improvements in predictive performance (AUC increase of +0.02-0.04) compared with models based exclusively on clinical variables, raising concerns about their cost-effectiveness. Notably, no predictive models were identified for Latin American populations, despite the region's high prevalence of HTN. This absence highlights a critical research gap. Conclusion: Cross-sectional predictive models represent valuable tools for the detection of HTN, with simplified clinical models performing nearly as well as more complex approaches. Future research should prioritize the development of models tailored to underrepresented populations, integrating social determinants of health and adopting accessible formats to facilitate implementation in resource-limited settings.
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.