ArticleISRN cardiology2012
MMP-2 and sTNF-R1 Variability in Patients with Essential Hypertension: 1-Year Follow-Up Study.
Article in ISRN cardiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Inflammation and prolonged QT time: results from the Cardiovascular Disease, Living and Ageing in Halle (CARLA) study.PloS one · 2014Article
- Observational
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study is to analyze MMP-2 and sTNF-R1 variability, potent predictors of cardiovascular events, in stable hypertensive patients during a 12-month followup. 234 asymptomatic patients (age 60 ± 13, 136 male) out of 252 patients with essential hypertension were followed up. MMP-2 and sTNF-R1 were measured at baseline and after 12 months (stage I). To compare MMP-2 and sTNF-R1 levels over time interval, we used the statistical method of Bland-Altman. MMP-2 and sTNF-R1 reproducibility was good in our patients for the two intervals with a coefficient of reproducibility of 8.2% and 11.3%, respectively. The percentages of patients within 1.96 × standard deviation of the mean were 93.6% and 92.7%. An elevated coefficient of correlation was obtained for MMP-2, basal versus stage I (r = 0.55, P < 0.0001) and for sTNF-R1 (r = 0.75, P < 0.0001). There is good stability in MMP-2 and sTNF-R1 levels in a followup study of patients with stable hypertension. As a consequence, assessment of its concentrations may be a useful tool for monitoring the follow-up of these patients. Measured variations in MMP-2 and sTNF-R1 levels, exceeding 8.2% and 11.3%, respectively, may indicate an increase in cardiovascular risk, thus, could be used to optimizing treatment than blood pressure control alone.
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.