Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24235839›Full record

ArticleVascular health and risk management2013

Titration of amlodipine to higher doses: a comparison of Asian and Western experience.

Kazuomi Kario, Jeffery Robbins, Barrett W Jeffers

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Vascular health and risk management, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. The importance of early-stage blood pressure control in thyroid cancer patients treated with lenvatinib from the perspective of dose intensity.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023
    Article
  3. Amlodipine in the current management of hypertension.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2023
    Review
  4. Systolic hypertension: an increasing clinical challenge in Asia.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2015
    Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Kazuomi KarioDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Jichi Medical University, Shimotsuke, Japan.
Jeffery Robbins
Barrett W Jeffers

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this retrospective analysis, data pooled from two Phase III/IV open-label Asian studies were used to quantify the additional blood pressure efficacy achieved when titrating amlodipine from 5 mg to 10 mg in mild/moderate hypertensive patients, and compared to data pooled from three Western studies. The primary efficacy end point was the change from baseline in sitting systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) to the specified time point (4-8 weeks, depending on the trial). For the Asian analysis (n=174), both mean SBP and DBP were significantly decreased at the final visit (SBP -13.3 mmHg, 95% confidence interval [CI] -15.5 to -11.0; DBP -9.2 mmHg, 95% CI -10.6 to -7.8; both P<0.0001). These results were similar to the Western analysis (n=369; SBP -11.5 mmHg, 95% CI -13.1 to -10.0; DBP -6.3, 95% CI -7.1 to -5.5; both P<0.0001). In summary, titration of amlodipine from 5 mg to 10 mg significantly decreased both SBP and DBP in Asian patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension.

Indexed as

Asian PeopleAgedAmlodipineAntihypertensive AgentsAsiaBlood PressureCalcium Channel BlockersClinical Trials, Phase III as TopicClinical Trials, Phase IV as TopicFemaleHumansHypertensionMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSeverity of Illness IndexAmlodipineAntihypertensive AgentsCalcium Channel BlockersVasodilator AgentsamlodipineAsiahypertension

Identifiers

PMID24235839
PMCPMC3821790

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.