ArticleCurrent hypertension reports1999
Controversies surrounding the treatment of the hypertensive patient with diabetes.
Article in Current hypertension reports, 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Metformin use among individuals at risk for type 2 diabetes.Current diabetes reports · 2012Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Diabetes mellitus without previous myocardial infarction carries the same risk of a future myocardial infarction as someone who has had one. Intense glucose, lipid, and blood pressure control in diabetic patients is advocated to reduce cardiovascular events and decrease the incidence of end-stage renal disease, retinal damage, and peripheral vascular disease. Recent studies, including the Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program, indicate that low-dose diuretics, compared with placebo, reduce fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarctions but not fatal and nonfatal strokes in diabetic patients. Similarly, captopril (and diuretics) compared with diuretics and beta-blockers decreased fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarctions but not fatal and nonfatal strokes in the Captopril Prevention Project. Intense blood pressure therapy with captopril and intense blood pressure therapy with atenolol equally lowered macrovascular and microvascular events compared with less intense blood pressure treatment in the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study. Fewer myocardial infarctions were seen with enalapril than with nisoldipine in the Appropriate Blood Pressure Control in Diabetes trial. Intense blood pressure control with felodipine, enalapril, and hydrochlorothiazide reduced overall cardiovascular events and mortality but not myocardial infarction and strokes in the Hypertension Optimal Treatment trial. Nitrendipine alone or together with enalapril and hydrochlorothiazide decreased fatal and nonfatal strokes and cardiovascular mortality but not myocardial infarctions in the Systolic Hypertension in Europe trial. These trials, in aggregate, reinforce the importance of intense blood pressure control, which can be achieved only with combination drug therapy rather than a specific monotherapy drug class recommendation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.