RESUMO
Despite significant pharmacological advancements, hypertension management remains challenging, with varying quality of primary care. Digital tools and other non-pharmacological interventions hold promise in addressing this challenge. Consequently, a thorough examination of these interventions is recommended. This meta-analysis focuses on clinician-oriented strategies aimed at improving hypertension management, to assess the most effective approaches for improving antihypertensive prescribing and blood pressure control for secondary prevention. This was done through a systematic review of randomized controlled trials published in PubMed and Embase since the beginning of 2010 that aimed to enhance antihypertensive medication prescription in primary care settings for hypertensive patients with secondary complications while reporting changes in blood pressure or target achievement. We screened 6305 records. Four studies met the inclusion criteria, with reported interventions including physician education and the implementation of electronic decision support systems. All studies showed that the control group had a statistically significant lower systolic blood pressure, but the effect on diastolic blood pressure was not statistically significant. The overall mean difference was 2.12 mmHg (95% CI = 0.98; 3.26, P-value = 0.0003) for systolic blood pressure in favor of the control group and 1.22 mmHg (95% CI = -0.48; 3.26, P-value = 0.16) for diastolic blood pressure, which was not statistically significant. Despite considerable efforts to control hypertension, it remains a significant obstacle to optimal cardiovascular risk reduction. This review is also limited by a scarcity of studies.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To compare the performance of chest computed tomography (CT) scan versus reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) as the reference standard in the initial diagnostic assessment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. A search of electronic information was conducted using the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMCARE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. SETTING: Studies that compared the diagnostic performance within the same patient cohort of chest CT scan versus RT-PCR in COVID-19 suspected patients. PARTICIPANTS: Thirteen non-randomised studies enrolling 4092 patients were identified. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were primary outcome measures. Secondary outcomes included other test performance characteristics and discrepant findings between both investigations. RESULTS: Chest CT had a median sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of 0.91 (range 0.82-0.98), 0.775 (0.25-1.00) and 0.87 (0.68-0.99), respectively, with RT-PCR as the reference. Importantly, early small, China-based studies tended to favour chest CT versus later larger, non-China studies. CONCLUSIONS: A relatively high false positive rate can be expected with chest CT. It is possible it may still be useful to provide circumstantial evidence, however, in some patients with a suspicious clinical presentation of COVID-19 and negative initial Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 RT-PCR tests, but more evidence is required in this context. In acute cardiorespiratory presentations, negative CT scan and RT-PCR tests is likely to be reassuring.