Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27792661›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2016

Treatment Intensification for Hypertension in US Ambulatory Medical Care.

Lin Mu, Kenneth J Mukamal

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

51 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 78 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. The Japanese Society of Hypertension Guidelines for the Management of Hypertension (JSH 2019).Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2019
    Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. The Impact of Antihypertensive De-escalation: A Secondary Analysis of Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT).High blood pressure & cardiovascular prevention : the official journal of the Italian Society of Hypertension · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Understanding clinical inertia in hypertension management: clues from real-world data.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Comparative Efficacy of Hypertension Management Strategies.The International journal of angiology : official publication of the International College of Angiology, Inc · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lin MuYale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT lin.mu@yale.edu.
Kenneth J MukamalDepartment of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center · USYale University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHypertension is widely prevalent yet remains uncontrolled in nearly half of US hypertensive adults. Treatment intensification for hypertension reduces rates of major cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality, but clinical inertia remains a notable impediment to further improving hypertension control. This study examines the likelihood and determinants of treatment intensification with new medication in US ambulatory medical care. METHODS AND

resultsUsing the nationally representative National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (2005-2012) and National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (2005-2011), we identified adult primary care visits with diagnosed hypertension and documented blood pressure exceeding goal targets and assessed the weighted prevalence and odds ratios of treatment intensification by initiation or addition of new medication. Approximately 41.7 million yearly primary care visits (crude N: 14 064, 2005-2012) occurred among US hypertensive adults with documented blood pressure ≥140/90 mm Hg, where treatment intensification may be beneficial. However, only 7.0 million of these visits (95% confidence interval 6.2-7.8 million) received treatment intensification with new medication, a weighted prevalence of 16.8% (15.8% to 17.9%). This proportion was consistently low and decreased over time. This decline was largely driven by decreasing medication initiation levels among patients on no previous hypertension medications from 31.8% (26.0% to 38.4%) in 2007 to 17.4% (14.0% to 21.4%) in 2012, while medication addition levels remained more stable over time.

conclusionsUS hypertensive adults received treatment intensification with new medication in only 1 out of 6 primary care visits, a fraction that is declining over time. A profound increase in intensification remains a vast opportunity to maximally reduce hypertension-related morbidity and mortality nationwide.

Indexed as

Ambulatory CarePractice Patterns, Physicians'Primary Health CareAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntihypertensive AgentsBlood PressureDrug SubstitutionDrug Therapy, CombinationFemaleHealth Care SurveysHumansHypertensionMaleAntihypertensive Agentsblood pressurehypertension medicationmedication additionmedication initiation

Identifiers

PMID27792661
PMCPMC5121514
OpenAlexW2535390099

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.