Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 398

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 70 of the 70 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Study Heterogeneity and Estimation of Prevalence of Primary Aldosteronism: A Systematic Review and Meta-Regression Analysis

Käyser, Sabine C., Dekkers, Tanja, Groenewoud, Hans J., van der Wilt, Gert Jan, Carel Bakx, J., van der Wel, Mark C., Hermus, Ad R., Lenders, Jacques W., Deinum, Jaap·2016·The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism

Abstract

CONTEXT: For health care planning and allocation of resources, realistic estimation of the prevalence of primary aldosteronism is necessary. Reported prevalences of primary aldosteronism are highly variable, possibly due to study heterogeneity. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to identify and explain heterogeneity in studies that aimed to establish the prevalence of primary aldosteronism in hypertensive patients. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and reference lists from January 1, 1990, to January 31, 2015, were used as data sources. STUDY SELECTION: Description of an adult hypertensive patient population with confirmed diagnosis of primary aldosteronism was included in this study. DATA EXTRACTION: Dual extraction and quality assessment were the forms of data extraction. DATA SYNTHESIS: Thirty-nine studies provided data on 42 510 patients (nine studies, 5896 patients from primary care). Prevalence estimates varied from 3.2% to 12.7% in primary care and from 1% to 29.8% in referral centers. Heterogeneity was too high to establish point estimates (I(2) = 57.6% in primary care; 97.1% in referral centers). Meta-regression analysis showed higher prevalences in studies 1) published after 2000, 2) from Australia, 3) aimed at assessing prevalence of secondary hypertension, 4) that were retrospective, 5) that selected consecutive patients, and 6) not using a screening test. All studies had minor or major flaws. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that it is pointless to claim low or high prevalence of primary aldosteronism based on published reports. Because of the significant impact of a diagnosis of primary aldosteronism on health care resources and the necessary facilities, our findings urge for a prevalence study whose design takes into account the factors identified in the meta-regression analysis.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1210/jc.2016-1472

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 70 references

Cited by

See all 398

Metadata

Authors
Käyser, S. C., Dekkers, T., Groenewoud, H. J., van der Wilt, G. J., Carel Bakx, J., van der Wel, M. C., Hermus, A. R., Lenders, J. W., & Deinum, J.
Venue
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism
Published
2016-07
Volume
101
Issue
7
Pages
2826-2835
ISSN
  • 0021-972X (ISSN-L)
  • 1945-7197
OpenAlex
W2387913746
Cited by
398
References
70
FWCI
4.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Study Heterogeneity and Estimation of Prevalence of Primary Aldosteronism: A Systematic Review and Meta-Regression Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1210/jc.2016-1472
The paper
Käyser, S. C., Dekkers, T., Groenewoud, H. J., van der Wilt, G. J., Carel Bakx, J., van der Wel, M. C., Hermus, A. R., Lenders, J. W., & Deinum, J. (2016). Study Heterogeneity and Estimation of Prevalence of Primary Aldosteronism: A Systematic Review and Meta-Regression Analysis. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2016-1472

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.