4.4 Article

Meta-analysis of differences in neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio between hypertensive and non-hypertensive individuals

期刊

BMC CARDIOVASCULAR DISORDERS
卷 23, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12872-023-03304-w

关键词

Hypertension; Inflammation; Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio; Dipper; Meta-analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study systematically reviewed the evidence on the differences in neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) levels between individuals with hypertension and those with normal blood pressure, as well as between patients with dipper and non-dipper hypertension (HTN). A total of 21 studies were included, and it was found that hypertensive patients had significantly higher NLR levels compared to individuals with normal blood pressure (WMD = 0.40, 95%CI = 0.22-0.57, P < 0.0001). Furthermore, non-dipper patients had higher NLR levels compared to dipper patients (WMD = 0.58, 95%CI = 0.19-0.97, P = 0.003).
This study systematically reviewed the evidence regarding differences in the neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) level between hypertensive and normotensive individuals as well as between patients with dipper and non-dipper hypertension (HTN). PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched up to 20 December 2021. This was done without any limitation with regard to date, publication, or language. Pooled weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were reported. We assessed the quality of studies based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). In total, 21 studies were included in our study. There was a significant increase in NLR levels for the hypertensive group in comparison to the control group (WMD = 0.40, 95%CI = 0.22-0.57, P < 0.0001). In addition, the NLR levels were higher in the non-dipper than in the dipper group (WMD = 0.58, 95%CI = 0.19-0.97, P = 0.003). Our findings showed that hypertensive patients had higher level of NLR than normotensive individuals.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据