ReviewCurrent hypertension reports2001
Recent clinical trial highlights in hypertension.
Review in Current hypertension reports, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical trials continue to guide patient management. However, the hypotheses generally come from observational studies. Studies on women continue to be too little and too few, particularly in light of the fact that most elderly hypertensive patients are likely to be women. Attention has been drawn to the possibility that hypertension per se may engender symptoms such as headache for example, in addition to harder endpoints such as death. The MICROHOPE study, which was not a blood pressure-lowering study, showed that angiotensin converting enzyme inhibition with ramipril in diabetic patients provided the same beneficial effects previously published for the HOPE study. The doxazosin arm of the ALLHAT study was terminated by the data monitoring and safety board because the doxazosin-treated patients developed congestive heart failure at a greater rate than diuretic-treated patients. Two extensive studies testing two different classes of calcium antagonists against primarily diuretic-based treatment showed that the calcium antagonists were no less effective in terms of preventing hard endpoints. A small, but impressive cross-over study testing the 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitor, pravastatin, against placebo showed that statin treatment lowers blood pressure in hypercholesterolemic patients with hypertension. Meta- analyses emphasized the value of blood pressure reduction in the elderly and added to the controversy and confusion about the role of calcium antagonists in the first-line treatment of hypertension. The point may be moot since with the current recommendations few hypertensive patients will be adequately treated with a single agent.
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.