ReviewCurrent hypertension reports2015
New Hypertension Guidelines: Progression or a Step Backwards in Hypertension?
Review in Current hypertension reports, 2015. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the last years, many hypertension guidelines have been published as new or revised versions. They follow the general trend that only clinical evidence is relevant for guidelines. Expert opinion is downplayed. At present, guidelines from three major organizations have been produced: by the European Society of Hypertension, the International Society/American Society of Hypertension, and the US Joint National Committee. We discuss eight versions of these guidelines in this review. All of these include statements on blood pressure goals or treatment algorithms for patients with high blood pressure. The variability of practical tips is great, and the recommendations, which mainly rely on evidence-based medical information, show slight differences that have resulted in some confusion with specialists and also practitioners. In the current review, the changes in the guidelines in comparison to previous guidelines are discussed, and reasons for different recommendations are explained. The hope is to reduce confusion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26068657What 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.