Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26942184›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2016

Timeline of History of Hypertension Treatment.

Mohammad G Saklayen, Neeraj V Deshpande

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 88 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. KCNQ Potassium Channels as Targets of Botanical Folk Medicines.Annual review of pharmacology and toxicology · 2022
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. New Perspectives in the Treatment of Hypertension.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mohammad G SaklayenV.A. Medical Center, Wright State University Boonshoft School of Medicine , Dayton, OH , USA.
Neeraj V DeshpandeOhio State University , Columbus, OH , USA.
The Ohio State University · USWright State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It is surprising that only about 50 years ago hypertension was considered an essential malady and not a treatable condition. Introduction of thiazide diuretics in late 50s made some headway in successful treatment of hypertension and ambitious multicenter VA co-operative study (phase 1 and 2) started in 1964 for diastolic hypertension ranging between 90 and 129 mmHg and completed by 1971 established for the first time that treating diastolic hypertension reduced CV events such as stroke and heart failure and improved mortality. In the following decade, these results were confirmed for the wider US and non-US population, including women and goal-oriented BP treatment to diastolic 90 became the standard therapy recommendation. But isolated systolic hypertension (accounting for two-thirds of the 70 million hypertensive population in USA alone) was not considered treatable until 1991 when SHEP study (systolic hypertension in elderly program) was completed and showed tremendous benefits of treating systolic BP over 160 mmHg using only a simple regimen using small dose chlorthalidone with addition of atenolol if needed. In the next two decades, ALLHAT and other studies examined the comparability of outcomes with use of different classes and combinations of antihypertensive drugs. Although diastolic BP goal was established as 90 in the late 70s and later confirmed by HOT study, the goal BP for systolic hypertension was not settled until very recently with completion of SPRINT study. ACCORD study showed no significant difference in outcome with sys 140 vs. 120 in diabetics. But recently completed SPRINT study with somewhat similar protocol as in ACCORD but in non-diabetic showed almost one-quarter reduction in all-cause mortality and one-third reduction of CV events with systolic BP goal 120.

Indexed as

historyhypertensionmulticenter trialrandomized controlled trialstreatment outcome

Identifiers

PMID26942184
PMCPMC4763852
OpenAlexW2329490823

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.