Trial reportMedical archives (Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina)2015
Emergency Room Treatment of Hypertensive Crises.
Trial report in Medical archives (Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pharmacologic Treatment of Hypertensive Urgency in the Outpatient Setting: A Systematic Review.Journal of general internal medicine · 2018Pooled it
- Treatment of Hypertensive Crisis in Primary Care Health Facilities in Peru, 2019-2024.High blood pressure & cardiovascular prevention : the official journal of the Italian Society of Hypertension · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Determinants of hypertensive crisis among hypertensive patients at adult emergency departments of public hospitals in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2021: a case-control study.International journal of emergency medicine · 2023Article
- Elevated blood pressure during emergency departments visit is associated with increased rate of hospitalization for heart failure: A retrospective cohort study.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe aim of the study was to evaluate efficiency of hypertensive urgency treatment using inhibitors of α1-adrenergic receptors and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors-ACE inhibitors in the Emergency Room of Outpatient Hospital and Polyclinic "dr Mustafa Šehovic" Tuzla in relation to age, duration and severity of hypertension.
methodsThe study was conducted from June 2011 to May 2012 and included 120 patients of both sexes diagnosed with arterial hypertension, aged 40 to 80 with verified hypertensive urgency. The patients were divided into two groups: the control group treated with sublingual captopril and the experimental group treated intravenously with urapidil.
resultsThe results show that the largest number of patients belonged to age group from 60 to 69 years (34,16%), and the average age was 58 (11). The largest number of patients (38,0%) had verified hypertension for 11 to 20 years. The average systolic/diastolic artery blood pressure at reception was 213 (19) / 130 (4) mmHg. The average systolic/diastolic artery blood pressure after the first dose of 12,5 mg captopril in the control group was 177,42 (10,91) / 112,33 (3,50) mmHg, while after the first dose of 12,5 mg urapidil it was 179,25 (16,62) / 110,33 (8,78) mmHg. The average systolic/diastolic artery blood pressure after the second dose of 12,5 mg of captopril in the control group was 152,00 (6,32) / 95,50 (3,76) mmHg, while after the second dose of 12,5 mg of urapidil it was 152,55 (7,17) / 95,29 (5,04) mmHg.
conclusionUrapidil is more efficient in hypertensive urgency treatment, since the decrease of middle artery pressure (MAP) in the group treated with urapidil was statistically significant (p<0,001). No statistical significance was found between the efficiency of urapidil and the patient's age, while captopril was more efficient in older patients (p=0,02). Also, no statistically significant difference was found between the efficiency of captopril and urapidil in relation to duration of hypertension.
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.