Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22928181›Full record

ArticleArchives of internal medicine2012

Comparative effectiveness of 2 β-blockers in hypertensive patients.

Emily D Parker, Karen L Margolis, Nicole K Trower, David J Magid, Heather M Tavel, Susan M Shetterly, P Michael Ho, Bix E Swain, Patrick J O'Connor

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. The Ecology of Antihypertensives in the United States, 1997-2017.Journal of general internal medicine · 2021
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Emily D ParkerHealthPartners Institute for Education and Research, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440-1524, USA. Emily.D.Parker@Healthpartners.com
Karen L Margolis
Nicole K Trower
David J Magid
Heather M Tavel
Susan M Shetterly
P Michael Ho
Bix E Swain
Patrick J O'Connor

Funding

HMO Research Network Cardiovascular Research NetworkU19HL091179 · NHLBI · KAISER FOUNDATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI GO, ALAN S · 2007 to 2011
$8.7M
NHLBI NIH HHS U19 HL091179
6 · The paper itself

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

Adrenergic beta-AntagonistsAgedAged, 80 and overComorbidityFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHeart FailureHumansHypertensionMaleMiddle AgedMyocardial InfarctionPrognosisProportional Hazards ModelsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicStrokeAdrenergic beta-Antagonists

Identifiers

PMID22928181
PMCPMC4120749

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.