Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21191425›Full record

ReviewVascular health and risk management2010

Cardio classics revisited--focus on the role of candesartan.

Maria Leonarda De Rosa

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Vascular health and risk management, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Maria Leonarda De RosaUniversity of Naples Federico II, Department of Cardiology, Naples, Italy. marialeonarda.derosa@unina.it
University of Naples Federico II · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) are antihypertensive agents with considerable evidence of efficacy and safety for the reduction of cardiovascular (CV) disease risk in numerous patient populations across the CV continuum. There are several agents within this class, all of which have contributed to various degrees, to this evidence base. The evidence with ARBs continues to accumulate, with ongoing trials investigating their role in additional patient populations, potentially expanding their efficacy across a broad spectrum of CV disease states. Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of death around the world, accounting for approximately 29.2% of total global deaths. Of all the deaths attributed to CVD, approximately 43% are due to ischemic heart disease, 33% to cerebrovascular disease, and 23% to hypertensive and other heart conditions. CVD has been represented as a "CV continuum". This continuum concept can be used to describe CVD in general or in specific vascular beds (eg, coronary artery disease or cerebrovascular disease). This review article will discuss the results of the landmark ARB candesartan clinical trials published over the past decade. The evidence presented spans the entire CV continuum, including the effects of ARBs in at-risk patients, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and heart failure (HF), as well as a brief discussion of ongoing trials.

Indexed as

Angiotensin Receptor AntagonistsAntihypertensive AgentsBenzimidazolesBiphenyl CompoundsCardiovascular DiseasesClinical Trials as TopicDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2HumansHypertensionRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTetrazolesTreatment OutcomeAngiotensin Receptor AntagonistsAntihypertensive AgentsBenzimidazolesBiphenyl CompoundscandesartanTetrazolesangiotensin II receptor blockerscandesartancardiovascular disease

Identifiers

PMID21191425
PMCPMC3004508
OpenAlexW2041154770

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.