4.5 Article

Does nocturnal blood pressure fall in people of African and South Asian descent differ from that in European white populations? A systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF HYPERTENSION
卷 23, 期 5, 页码 913-920

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.hjh.0000166827.94699.f9

关键词

ethnic variations; Blacks; South Asian; nocturnal blood pressure fall

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To assess whether nocturnal blood pressure fall in people of African (Black) and South Asian descent differs from that of the European origin white populations (White). Methods A systematic literature review was carried out using Medline 1966-2003 and Embase 1980-2003, and citations from references. The meta-analysis was performed using Cochrane review manager software (RevMan version 4.2; The Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, U K). Results Seventeen studies were identified; 11 studies from the USA, one from the USA and Canada, and six studies from the United Kingdom. The mean percentage systolic blood pressure (SBP) nocturnal fall was below 10% (non-dipping) in 10 of 17 studies (59%) and the diastolic blood pressure (DBP) nocturnal fall was below 10% in four of 16 studies (25%) in Blacks compared with four of 17 studies (24%) in SBP and none in DBP nocturnal falls in Whites. Compared with Whites, Blacks had a significantly lower mean percentage nocturnal fall; the overall weighted mean difference in SBP was -3.07 (95% confidence interval, -3.81, -2.33; P < 0.00001) and in DBP was -2.98 (95% confidence interval, -3.97, -2.00; P < 0.00001). Two studies on South Asians showed a higher SBP but a similar mean DBP nocturnal fall compared with Whites. Conclusion Smaller nocturnal blood pressure falls and a higher prevalence of non-dipping may contribute to the higher levels of hypertension complications seen in Black people. No such phenomenon was seen in South Asians but more research is needed to explore their higher stroke mortality. (c) 2005 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

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

4.5
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