Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27021293›Full record

ReviewJournal of general internal medicine2016

Is 60 the New 80 in Hypertension?

Matthew C Pflederer, Raymond O Estacio, Mori J Krantz

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of general internal medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Matthew C PfledererDenver Health Medical Center, 777 Bannock St. MC 0960, Denver, CO, 80204, USA.
Raymond O EstacioDenver Health Medical Center, 777 Bannock St. MC 0960, Denver, CO, 80204, USA.
Mori J KrantzDenver Health Medical Center, 777 Bannock St. MC 0960, Denver, CO, 80204, USA. mkrantz@dhha.org.
University of Colorado Denver · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since the release of the "2014 evidence-based guideline for the management of high blood pressure in adults: report from the panel members appointed to the Eighth Joint National Committee (JNC 8)", much controversy has ensued over the appropriate systolic blood pressure goal for those over the age of 60 years. This guideline suggested liberalizing the target for this population to <150 mmHg, moving away from previous guidelines suggesting a target of <140 mmHg. While some national quality measures have accepted the new relaxed blood pressure goal, the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology have not. Recently published data show that millions of adults over 60 years of age would be classified as controlled using a threshold of <150 mmHg, but not with a target of <140 mmHg. In addition, emerging randomized trial evidence suggests that targeting a systolic blood pressure well below 140 mmHg is beneficial in older adults. In light of the improved health and vitality of older adults, and the steady decline in cardiovascular and cerebrovascular mortality over recent decades, we do not think it is in good judgment to liberalize the treatment target in adults less than 80 years of age.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overAntihypertensive AgentsBlood PressureBlood Pressure DeterminationFemaleHumansHypertensionMaleMiddle AgedRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAntihypertensive Agentscardiovascular diseaseguidelineshypertensionprevention

Identifiers

PMID27021293
PMCPMC4945554
OpenAlexW2330544674

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.