SynthesisBMJ clinical evidence2014
Diabetes: treating hypertension.
Synthesis in BMJ clinical evidence, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Association between Systolic Blood Pressure and Diabetic Retinopathy in Both Hypertensive and Normotensive Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: Risk Factors and Healthcare Implications.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
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
Abstract
introductionBetween 2007 and 2010, the age-adjusted prevalence of hypertension in US adults with diabetes was 59%, more than double the prevalence in those without diabetes. Major cardiac events occur in approximately 5% of people with diabetes and untreated hypertension each year, and the risk is higher in those with other risk factors, such as diabetic nephropathy. METHODS AND OUTCOMES: We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of different blood pressure targets in people with diabetes and hypertension? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to October 2013 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
resultsWe found 10 studies that met our inclusion criteria.
conclusionsIn this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following intervention: more intensive (lower) blood pressure targets versus less intensive (higher) targets in people with diabetes and hypertension.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24967882PMC4072092What 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.