ArticleJournal of human hypertension2015
Resistant hypertension: do all definitions describe the same patients?
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. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The highly neglected burden of resistant hypertension in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ open · 2016Pooled it
- Article
- Resistant Hypertension: A Real Entity Requiring Special Treatment?European cardiology · 2016Review
- Resistant Hypertension: A Real Entity or a Phantom Diagnosis?Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Resistant hypertension (RH) is defined as blood pressure (BP) that remains ⩾140 and/or 90 mm Hg despite therapy with ⩾3 full-dose antihypertensive drugs (classical definition=CD). A definition proposed subsequently (new definition=ND) includes patients requiring ⩾4 drugs irrespective of BP values. We aimed to evaluate whether both definitions characterize the same kind of patients.One hundred and twenty-four consecutively attended patients with RH were classified into two groups according to their BP control: 66 patients had non-controlled BP (all those who met the CD criteria plus a few patients who met the ND criteria); 58 patients had controlled BP (all with RH according to the ND). Clinical, laboratory and office BP data were recorded. RH patients with non-controlled BP were more frequently diabetic (72% vs 49%), and had higher plasmatic glucose (149 vs 130 mg dl(-1)), cholesterol (179 vs 164 mg dl(-1)), low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol (107 vs 95 mg dl(-1)) and triglyceride (169 vs 137 mg dl(-1)) levels; P<0.05 for all comparisons. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, the variables that independently associated with non-controlled BP were diabetes (P=0.001) and higher LDL-cholesterol (P=0.007).We conclude that, although both cohorts of patients are phenotypically quite similar, uncontrolled RH patients have higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus and higher LDL-cholesterol levels than controlled RH patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25589214What 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.