ReviewJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2009
Is left ventricular hypertrophy regression important? Does the tool used to detect it matter?
Review in Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.), 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Plasma protein thiolation index (PTI) as a potential biomarker for left ventricular hypertrophy in humans.PloS one · 2019Article
- Ex vivo cardiovascular magnetic resonance measurements of right and left ventricular mass compared with direct mass measurement in excised hearts after transplantation: a first human SSFP comparison.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2014Article
- Visit-to-visit and ambulatory blood pressure variability as predictors of incident cardiovascular events in patients with hypertension.American journal of hypertension · 2012Article
- Effects of the combinations of amlodipine/valsartan versus losartan/hydrochlorothiazide on left ventricular hypertrophy as determined with magnetic resonance imaging in patients with hypertension.Journal of drug assessment · 2012Article
- Echocardiographic quantification of left ventricular mass: prognostic implications.Current cardiology reports · 2010Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) has been demonstrated to define an adverse cardiovascular prognosis. However, due to poor noninvasive tools in which to accurately define LVH, the clinical manifestations dictate an inexact manner in which to either initiate therapy or to gauge the success of LVH regression. Herein, the authors define the current state of imaging modalities available to interrogate LVH and its regression, but concentrating chiefly on the "gold standard" of cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMR). The authors review the data demonstrating the importance of LVH regression. Additionally, they highlight the strengths and weaknesses of CMR via several pinnacle studies that demonstrate the ease, efficiency, and accuracy of this new noninvasive reproducible and available tool to relatively inexpensively delineate LVH. Finally, upon pharmacologic administration of an antihypertensive regimen, the authors, for the first time, define a goal of left ventricular mass reduction (in grams) for echocardiography and CMR based in part on Framingham data aiming at improving cardiovascular risk.
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.