ArticleJournal of human hypertension2008
A comparative analysis of four clinical guidelines for hypertension management.
Article in Journal of human hypertension, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Critical appraisal of clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma.Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2011Pooled it
- Framework for standardized genetic testing recommendations for chronic kidney disease in Ontario.Genetics in medicine open · 2025Article
- Trends in Worldwide Research in Hypertension Over the Period 1999-2018: A Bibliometric Study.Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) · 2020Article
- Chinese herbal formulas for treating hypertension in traditional Chinese medicine: perspective of modern science.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We compared the structure and content of guidelines for hypertension management across countries to gain an understanding of where differences between them originate from. Four guidelines published between 2003 and 2006 were selected. Two were issued by national agencies in the United Kingdom and France, and two were issued by working groups or national medical societies in the United States and in Europe. The structure of guidelines, the content of each section and their underlying bibliographic references were compared between authoring bodies. If differences were found between guidelines in terms of content, we analysed the rationales. The guidelines were sufficiently similar in structure, showing common sections such as lifestyle interventions, cardiovascular risk assessment and drug therapies. However, contentwise, major differences were observed across the four hypertension guidelines in virtually every section of the document. The definition of hypertension was consistent, whereas the grade stratification was not. Information concerning the blood pressure self-measurement, the estimation of cardiovascular risk and the antihypertensive drugs proposed for initial treatment also varied. Most of the differences were present in both guidelines and their rationales, but some were only found in the guidelines. The bibliographic references for the rationales differed significantly, with only 1.2, 2.2 and 8.8% of the total number of references were common to four, three and two authoring bodies, accounting for the variability. We conclude that improving the selection process of bibliographic references and the extraction process of guidelines from the rationales might be the first step to harmonize guidelines' development.
Indexed as
Identifiers
18685604What 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.