Prevalence of Hypertension in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text


Domain (source of bias) Assessment Risk of bias
Selection ( We first transformed the proportion of participants with hypertension in each study via the Freeman-Tukey double arcsine method 1 then performs an inverse-variance weighted random effects meta-analysis by conventional methods 2 .
The pooled proportion can be calculated as the back-transform of the weighted mean of the transformed proportions: ( ) 2 1 sin(x)1 sin(x)ˆ1 cos(x) 1 sin(x) 2 p sign n -where p hat is the fixed effects pooled proportion, x is the Freeman-Tukey transformed proportion, w is the inverse variance weight for the transformed proportion, q is the Cochran q statistic, tau squared is the moment-based estimate of the between-studies variance, w r is the DerSimonian-Laird weight, and p hat r is the random effects estimate of the pooled proportion. 4 Eligibility criteria 6 Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.

4
Information sources 7 Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.

5
Search 8 Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.

5
Study selection 9 State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).

5
Data collection process 10 Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.

5-6
Data items 11 List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.

5-6
Risk of bias in individual studies 12 Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.

Page | 7
Section/topic # Checklist item Reported on page # Summary measures 13 State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).

6-7
Synthesis of results 14 Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I 2 ) for each meta-analysis.

6-7
Risk of bias across studies 15 Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).

6
Additional analyses 16 Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.

RESULTS
Study selection 17 Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.

6-7
Study characteristics 18 For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.

6-8
Risk of bias within studies 19 Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item 12).

8-9
Results of individual studies 20 For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.

9-11
Synthesis of results 21 Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.

9-11
Risk of bias across studies 22 Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item 15).

Summary of evidence
24 Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).

12-14
Limitations 25 Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).

15-16
Conclusions 26 Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.