ArticleJournal of human hypertension2015
An epidemiological study determining blood pressure in a Portuguese cohort: the Guimarães/Vizela study.
Article in Journal of human hypertension, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Surveying the evolution of blood pressure (BP) levels and hypertension (HTN) prevalence is important. A stringent strategy was utilized in a population cohort study. The BP was measured at two visits at least 3 months apart, and the results were analyzed using the following two methods: the Surveillance method (three BP measurements were performed in one visit, and the results were compared with those published previously for the identical method) and the Clinical method (three measurements per visit for two visits, and the concordant results in both visits were used to determine the BP classification). A total of 2542 subjects completed the evaluation. Using the Clinical method, an average systolic/diastolic BP value of 129.8/76.8 mm Hg was obtained, and the prevalence of HTN was 31.6%. Of the hypertensive patients, 74.3% were aware of his/her condition; 69.1% were treated and 40.8% of those treated had adequate BP control. A total of 24.7% of subjects changed his/her BP classification between visits, and 13.7% misreported HTN. Using the Surveillance method, we determined that the average global SBP has been maintained, with HTN prevalence increasing in this region, drifting from reported trends nationally and worldwide. There has been improvement in the proportion of treated and controlled subjects; however, the Surveillance method overestimated the HTN prevalence and underestimated the proportion of treated and controlled subjects. The BP levels were higher than observed worldwide in high-cardiovascular (CV) risk countries as well as higher than the minimum risk exposure level for developing CV disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25078486What 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.