Association Between Interleukin-6 -572 C>G and -174 G>C Polymorphisms and Hypertension

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text


Rationale
3 Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.

3-5
Objectives 4 Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).

Protocol and registration 5
Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.

N/A
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.

6-7
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.

5-6
Search 8 Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.

5-6
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).

5-7
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.

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.

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.

9
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.

9
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).

10
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.

10-11
Synthesis of results 21 Present the main results of the review. If meta-analyses done, include for each, confidence intervals and measures of consistency.

10-12
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).

14-16
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).

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

Funding 27
Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review. For more information, visit: www.prisma-statement.org.