Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17163243›Full record

ArticleClinical drug investigation2006

Efficacy and safety of amlodipine: a comparative study of hypertensive patients treated at primary- and specialised-care centres.

Y Valcárcel, R Jiménez, V Hernández, R Arístegui, A Gil, NOTA Study Group

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical drug investigation, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 39% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Y ValcárcelFaculty of Health Sciences, Rey Juan Carlos University, Madrid, Spain. yolanda.valcarcel@urjc.es
R Jiménez
V Hernández
R Arístegui
A Gil
NOTA Study Group
Universidad Rey Juan Carlos · ESPfizer (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study set out to assess the safety and efficacy of amlodipine in two cohorts of patients who were attended in primary- and specialised-care centres, respectively.

methodsProspective, observational, multicentre pharmacovigilance study including patients aged >18 years who presented with a diagnosis of hypertension (systolic blood pressure [SBP] >or=140 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure [DBP] >or=90 mm Hg) of >6 months' duration, which was either untreated or uncontrolled, and who were followed up by general practitioners and specialists over a period of 4-6 months.

resultsOf the total of 4277 patients included in the study, 2520 (58.9%) were attended in primary care and 1757 (41.1%) in specialised care. 2982 patients (69.7%) were receiving monotherapy, the rest were receiving combined therapy. Over the course of the study, 308 patients (7.2%) experienced adverse events related to the study drug, mostly mild to moderate in nature. There were 20 serious events, although none was related to the study drug. By the end of the study, 1617 patients (37.8%) had achieved the therapeutic goal (SBP <140 mm Hg and DBP <90 mm Hg), with the greatest degree of control being registered among patients receiving combined therapy compared with monotherapy (38.7% vs 35.7%), and in those treated in a specialised-care setting versus a primary-care setting (43.5% vs 33.8%; p < 0.005).

conclusionsAmlodipine was shown to be a well tolerated and effective drug in one in three patients, and achieved the therapeutic goal in a higher proportion of patients at specialised-care centres compared with those in primary care, and in those receiving combined therapy compared with monotherapy.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAmlodipineCalcium Channel BlockersDiastoleDrug Therapy, CombinationFemaleHumansHypertensionMaleMiddle AgedSystoleAmlodipineCalcium Channel Blockers

Identifiers

PMID17163243
OpenAlexW2040492058

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.