{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017940199335548173, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0033222591362126247, 'mean_word_length': 5.51948051948052, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
COMPARISON OF NON-INVASIVE CENTRAL BLOOD PRESSURE MEASUREMENTS WITH PERIPHERAL BLOOD PRESSURE MEASUREMENTS IN THE DIAGNOSTIC, PROGNOSTIC AND THERAPEUTIC AREAS. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Objective: Arterial hypertension is a major public health problem and current recommendations call for a review of the literature on the contribution of non-invasive central blood pressure (BP) estimation. Design and method: We performed a systematic review of systematic reviews that compare non-invasive central BP with peripheral BP measurements in the diagnostic, prognostic and therapeutic areas, including a comprehensive research in databases and grey literature, and a qualitative analysis according to the ROBIS and AMSTAR tools. Results: Among 1738 bibliographic references, 8 publications were selected.This systematic review shows for central BP as compared to peripheral BP in terms of the diagnosis the importance of the calibration method, and in terms of the prognosis the absence of a significant effect on clinical events but a significant effect on surrogate endpoints. In terms of the treatment, it shows that antihypertensive drugs, and in particular bêta-blockers and thiazide diuretics have a greater effect on the decrease in peripheral BP than on non-invasive central BP, thus leading to a decrease in the arterial pressure amplification. Conclusions: Basic research on calibration methods is essential to obtain a better estimation of the central BP and to propose clinical studies on a larger scale.