ReviewJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2013
The new hypertension guidelines.
Review in Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biomarkers of cardiometabolic complications in survivors of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- A Bayesian multivariate latent t-regression model for assessing the association between corticosteroid and cranial radiation exposures and cardiometabolic complications in survivors of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a PETALE study.BMC medical research methodology · 2019Article
- Comparison Among Recommendations for the Management of Arterial Hypertension Issued by Last US, Canadian, British and European Guidelines.High blood pressure & cardiovascular prevention : the official journal of the Italian Society of Hypertension · 2018Article
- Cardiometabolic Risk Factors in Childhood, Adolescent and Young Adult Survivors of Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia - A Petale Cohort.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Preferred Fourth-Line Pharmacotherapy for Resistant Hypertension: Are We There Yet?Current hypertension reports · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Canadian Hypertension Education Program (CHEP) has published guidelines annually since 2000. The CHEP guidelines are a model of concise, comprehensive, up-to-date, evidence-rated guidelines for physicians who diagnose and treat hypertension. The guidelines address measurement of blood pressure and the definition of hypertension, secondary hypertension evaluation and treatment, and blood pressure targets and medication choices in patients with and without compelling indications. This review describes CHEP's process for developing guidelines and provides an overview of the 2013 recommendations.
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.