ReviewCurrent hypertension reports2017
Ambiguities in the Guidelines for the Management of Arterial Hypertension: Indian Perspective with a Call for Global Harmonization.
Review in Current hypertension reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients on angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers.European heart journal. Cardiovascular pharmacotherapy · 2021Pooled it
- Trends in Antihypertensive Medicine Utilization in the Republic of Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina: An Eleven-Year Follow-Up.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Article
- Variation in hypertension clinical practice guidelines: a global comparison.BMC medicine · 2021Article
- Diet Sugar-Free Carbonated Soda Beverage, Non-Caloric Flavors Consumption, and Diabetic Retinopathy: Any Linkage.Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many medical professional societies have formulated guidelines to treat hypertension, but there existed differences with respect to diagnosis, blood pressure (BP) targets, pharmacotherapy of hypertension, and grades of evidence. A MEDLINE search for hypertension guidelines was performed to compare Indian guidelines for hypertension (IGH) with these guidelines. A majority of the guidelines had consensus on the cutoff value (140/90 mmHg, recorded twice) to diagnose hypertension. The Joint National Committee 8 (JNC 8), IGH, Japanese Society of hypertension (JSH), Canadian Hypertension Education Program (CHEP), and American Society of Hypertension/International Society of Hypertension (ASH/ISH) guidelines provide a higher BP target for the elderly hypertensive populations, while the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and European Society of Hypertension (ESH) guidelines provided a lower BP target for the elderly patients. However, a meta-analysis showed benefits of having a systolic BP target of <130 mmHg for all patients. Treatment of hypertension according to JNC 8, NICE, and ASH/ISH guidelines varies among the black and the non-black population which recommended thiazide or calcium channel blockers for the black population. There is no special mention of pharmacotherapy or BP targets for the South Asian population in various guidelines including IGH despite evidence of higher risk of hypertension-associated complications in this population. It is suggested that all the available guidelines should be harmonized with highest level of evidence available to minimize ambiguities associated with management 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.