ArticleClinical cardiology2015
Clinical Diagnosis and Management of Hypertension Compared With the Joint National Committee 8 Panelists' Recommendations.
Article in Clinical cardiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Alignment of breast cancer screening guidelines, accountability metrics, and practice patterns.The American journal of managed care · 2017Article
- High Plasma Levels of Gremlin-1 and Macrophage Migration Inhibitory Factor, but Not Their Ratio, Indicate an Increased Risk for Acute Coronary Syndrome in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.Clinical cardiology · 2016Observational
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
backgroundThe panelists of the Joint National Committee recently published new recommendations for the management of hypertension. Our study aims to evaluate how current practice compares. HYPOTHESIS: Current practice likely deviates from the recent JNC 8 panelists' recommendations.
methodsA survey was sent to cardiology providers at 3 academic medical centers: Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona; and Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. Providers were asked to select which blood-pressure goal would be deemed appropriate in various cases based on individual practice in both the maintenance of patients already on therapy as well as threshold of when to initiate therapy. Comparisons with current recommendations were made, as well as geographic location and level of experience.
resultsA total of 251 survey requests were sent (May 2014), and 77 responses (30.7%) were received. Cardiologists tended not to practice according to the new guidelines, with most variation seen in patients age >60 years without comorbidities on active treatment. Providers' selection of initial pharmacologic agents in non-African American patients, African American patients, and patients with diabetes mellitus reflected congruency with guidelines.
conclusionsOur study found that clinical practice does not correlate well with the new blood-pressure goal recommendations published by the Joint National Committee 8 panelists, particularly in patients age >60 years. Practitioners are likely to follow the recommendations in regard to pharmacologic management.
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.