↓ Skip to main content

Adiposity has a greater impact on hypertension in lean than not-lean populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Epidemiology, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Adiposity has a greater impact on hypertension in lean than not-lean populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
European Journal of Epidemiology, May 2014
DOI 10.1007/s10654-014-9911-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Simin Arabshahi, Doreen Busingye, Asvini K. Subasinghe, Roger G. Evans, Michaela A. Riddell, Amanda G. Thrift

Abstract

More than 75 % of people with hypertension live in low-to-middle income countries (LMICs). Based on the mismatch theory of developmental origins of disease, we hypothesised that the impact of adiposity on hypertension is augmented in lean compared with not-lean populations in rural areas of LMICs (RLMICs). We reviewed studies from RLMICs in which the association between body mass index (BMI) or waist circumference (WC) and hypertension was assessed using multivariable models. Applying random effect models, we conducted separate meta-analyses, depending on whether BMI/WC was assessed as a continuous or categorical variable. In each analysis, the studies were ranked by the mean BMI of the total population. Those populations with a mean BMI below the median were categorised as lean and those above the median as not-lean. We identified 46 studies of BMI and 12 of WC. The risk of hypertension was greater in lean than in not-lean populations. Obese males in lean populations were 45 % more likely to be hypertensive compared to obese males in not-lean populations, ratio of the two effect sizes: 1.45 (95 % CI 1.04, 2.03), p = 0.027. Also, individuals with WC above normal in lean populations were 52 % more likely to be hypertensive than their counterparts in not-lean populations, ratio of the two effect sizes: 1.52 (95 % CI 1.06, 2.17), p = 0.021. We conclude that the risk of hypertension associated with adiposity is greater in lean than in not-lean populations. This provides further evidence for the mismatch theory and highlights the need for strategies to improve nutrition in disadvantaged RLMICs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 15%
Researcher 5 13%
Professor 3 8%
Lecturer 3 8%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 5 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 41%
Sports and Recreations 4 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Social Sciences 3 8%
Neuroscience 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 7 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 December 2020.
All research outputs
#14,781,203
of 22,756,196 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Epidemiology
#1,285
of 1,618 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,361
of 227,399 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Epidemiology
#25
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,756,196 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,618 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.4. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 227,399 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.