ArticleJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2012
Diuretics for hypertension-reasons for a contradiction in primary care prescribing behavior: a qualitative study.
Article in Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy and Safety of a Single-Pill Triple Combination of Valsartan, Amlodipine, and Chlorthalidone in Patients With Essential Hypertension Inadequately Controlled on Dual Therapy With Valsartan and Amlodipine: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter, Phase 3 Trial.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2026Trial
- The use of routine data from primary care practices in Germany to analyze the impact of the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 on the utilization of primary care services for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.BMC primary care · 2022Article
- Effectiveness of treatment of newly diagnosed hypertension in family medicine practices in South Croatia.BMC family practice · 2019Article
- Pharmacological therapy and blood pressure control in primary health care sites in China: data from 254,848 hypertensive patients.Clinical epidemiology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There has been a long international discussion on diuretics as first-line therapy for hypertension. In Germany, thiazide diuretics are very rarely prescribed in monotherapy and concurrently highly prescribed in fixed-combinations. The aim of this study was to approach the reasons for this inconsistency in primary care prescribing behavior. A qualitative study design consisting of single interviews with general practitioners (GPs) was chosen. Most GPs perceived diuretics as too weak to treat arterial hypertension effectively in monotherapy. In combination therapy, GPs expected to spare the dose and to offset certain side effects of other drugs. The convenient availability of diuretics in most fixed-dose combinations on the German drug market was seen as an important reason for their frequent prescription in combination therapy. Thus, the reasons given by the GPs differed from the main arguments of the academic debate. Dissemination strategies for guidelines should take the perceptions and opinions of practicing GPs into account.
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.