ArticleArchives of internal medicine2012
Comparative effectiveness of 2 β-blockers in hypertensive patients.
Article in Archives of internal medicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Major adverse cardiovascular event definitions used in observational analysis of administrative databases: a systematic review.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Pooled it
- The Ecology of Antihypertensives in the United States, 1997-2017.Journal of general internal medicine · 2021Article
- Current perspectives on systemic hypertension in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.Current cardiology reports · 2014Review
- Therapy: atenolol versus metoprolol tartrate--conflicting outcomes data.Nature reviews. Nephrology · 2014Article
- The current status of beta blockers' use in the management of hypertension.Saudi medical journal · 2014Review
- Observational comparative effectiveness studies of drug therapies: high-quality answers or important clinical questions?: comment on "Comparative effectiveness of 2 β-blockers in hypertensive patients".Archives of internal medicine · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRandomized controlled trials have demonstrated the efficacy of selected β-blockers for preventing cardiovascular (CV) events in patients following myocardial infarction (MI) or with heart failure (HF). However, the effectiveness of β-blockers for preventing CV events in patients with hypertension has been questioned recently, but it is unclear whether this is a class effect.
methodsUsing electronic medical record and health plan data from the Cardiovascular Research Network Hypertension Registry, we compared incident MI, HF, and stroke in patients who were new β-blocker users between 2000 and 2009. Patients had no history of CV disease and had not previously filled a prescription for a β-blocker. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to examine the associations of atenolol and metoprolol tartrate with incident CV events using both standard covariate adjustment (n = 120,978) and propensity score-matching methods (n = 22,352).
resultsDuring follow-up (median, 5.2 years), there were 3517 incident MI, 3272 incident HF, and 3664 incident stroke events. Hazard ratios for MI, HF, and stroke in metoprolol tartrate users were 0.99 (95% CI, 0.97-1.02), 0.99 (95% CI, 0.96-1.01), and 0.99 (95% CI, 0.97-1.02), respectively. An alternative approach using propensity score matching yielded similar results in 11,176 new metoprolol tartrate users, who were similar to 11,176 new atenolol users with regard to demographic and clinical characteristics.
conclusionsThere were no statistically significant differences in incident CV events between atenolol and metoprolol tartrate users with hypertension. Large registries similar to the one used in this analysis may be useful for addressing comparative effectiveness questions that are unlikely to be resolved by randomized trials.
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.