The ALLHAT study: if you believe in evidence-based medicine, stick to it!

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. A review of randomised clinical trials.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2005
   Article
2. Clinical trials report. Reading alphabet soup.Current hypertension reports · 2005
   Article
3. The JNC 7 report: challenges and dilemmas in writing guidelines.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  What lies behind the intense criticism of ALLHAT?2004
• Comment on
  Major outcomes in high-risk hypertensive patients randomized to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or calcium channel blocker vs diuretic: The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT).2002

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as