SynthesisBMC public health2026
Prevalence of and associated factors for resistant hypertension in primary care settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC public health, 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
Abstract
backgroundResistant hypertension (RHT) constitutes a significant global public health challenge, though its prevalence within primary care is not well characterized. This study therefore aimed to estimate the prevalence of RHT and identify associated factors in primary care settings.
methodsWe systematically searched PubMed and Embase for studies reporting RHT prevalence in primary care, published through October 2025. Two reviewers independently extracted data and study demographics. Pooled prevalence estimates were calculated using a random-effects meta-analysis and compared across settings, measurement methods, and regions; associated factors were explored via meta-regression.
resultsFifteen observational studies, encompassing 1,993,839 individuals, were included. Based on guideline consensus definitions, the pooled prevalence of RHT was 13% (95% CI, 10–17%; I² = 99.9%). Stratified by setting, the pooled prevalence was 13% (95% CI, 9–18%; I2 = 99.9%) in 11 primary care cohorts, 14% (95% CI, 4–37%; I2 = 99.5%) in 3 community health cohorts, and 15% in 1 institutional care cohort. Meta-regression identified male sex as a potential factor associated with RHT in primary care. Furthermore, the observed heterogeneity in this study likely stems from expected variations in environment, design, and other factors across the included studies.
conclusionThe prevalence of RHT is high in primary care populations. However, substantial heterogeneity, a limited number of studies, and methodological variations necessitate cautious interpretation and more rigorous research to inform public health interventions.
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.