Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19308341›Full record

ReviewDer Internist2009

[Stroke and hypertension].

J Schrader

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Internist, 2009. 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
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 42% 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Irregularities of Coagulation in Hypertension.Current hypertension reports · 2023
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

J SchraderMedizinische Klinik, St.-Josefs-Hospital, Krankenhausstrasse 13, Cloppenburg, Germany. j.schrader@kh-clp.de
St. Josefs Hospital · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Arterial hypertension is the most important risk factor for stroke. Many interventional trials have unambiguously proven the benefit of antihypertensive therapy in both primary and secondary prevention for all age categories. No recommendation for any single antihypertensive substance for the primary prevention of stroke exists. Achieving the therapeutic goal (normotension) is the crucial factor. In most patients, multiple combinations of antihypertensive drugs are required to do this. For high-risk patients and in secondary prevention, substances inhibiting the renin-angiotensin-system, especially combined with calcium antagonists and indapamid, may be advantageous, while beta-blockers appear to be less well suited. In patients suffering from left-ventricular hypertrophy or atrial fibrillation, sartanes are the best-documented drug class. As TIA or stroke will often disturb the normal circadian rhythm of blood pressure and eliminate the usual night-time drop, monitoring of the therapeutic results must include ambulatory 24h measurements. The interrelation between vascular dementia and hypertension is by now also considered proven. An early start of antihypertensive treatment can prevent the development of dementia and impaired cognitive function.

Indexed as

Antihypertensive AgentsHumansHypertensionStrokeAntihypertensive Agents

Identifiers

PMID19308341
OpenAlexW1568278846

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.