Abstract
Background
Self-reported hypertension is a useful method to estimate prevalence in the population. However, it is necessary to evaluate its accuracy, in relation to the gold-standard diagnostic methods of the disease.
Objectives
To estimate combined measures of sensitivity and specificity for self-reported hypertension, using Brazilian validation studies that included gold standard methods.
Methods
A systematic review and a meta-analysis were developed. Two independent examiners evaluated 1389 and read 113 potentially eligible articles. Since self-reported morbidity is influenced by the cultural and economic characteristics of a population, as well as by its accessibility to medical care, only studies from one country (Brazil) were included. First, a qualitative analysis was performed, evaluating the relationship between self-reported hypertension and its measurement through gold-standard methods. Subsequently, a meta-analysis estimated the combined sensitivity and specificity for the included studies. Due to a high heterogeneity among studies, the meta-analysis used a random effects model. Bias risks were evaluated by the QUADAS-2 protocol and the standard significance level of 10% was used in all modelling.
Results
Five studies were included in the qualitative analysis; and four had the necessary information for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Patient selection and Index Test (the question allowing for self-reporting) were the domains with the highest risk of bias. In the meta-analysis, combined sensitivity and specificity were 77%(95%CI:[74.5-79.0%]) and 88%(95%CI:[86.3-88.6%]), respectively.
Conclusions
The analysed studies allowed for the estimation of more reliable values for combined sensitivity and specificity. These values were higher than those usually found in studies with greater population heterogeneity.
Hypertension; Epidemiology; Meta-Analysis; Accuracy; Systematic Review
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
