Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28275946›Full record

ReviewJournal of general internal medicine2017

A Network Meta-Analysis of Clinical Management Strategies for Treatment-Resistant Hypertension: Making Optimal Use of the Evidence.

Peter Makai, Joanna IntHout, Jaap Deinum, Kevin Jenniskens, Gert Jan van der Wilt

Open access · hybridAbstract readReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of general internal medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Managing Hypertension in the elderly: What's new?American journal of preventive cardiology · 2020
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Peter MakaiDepartment for Health Evidence, Health Technology Assessment Group, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Peter.Makai@Radboudumc.nl.
Joanna IntHoutDepartment for Health Evidence, Health Technology Assessment Group, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Jaap DeinumDepartment for Health Evidence, Health Technology Assessment Group, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Kevin JenniskensJulius Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Gert Jan van der WiltDepartment for Health Evidence, Health Technology Assessment Group, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Radboud University Medical Center · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NLUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith the addition of surgical interventions to current medicinal treatments, it is increasingly challenging for clinicians to rationally choose among the various options for treating patients with apparent treatment-resistant hypertension (ATRHTN). This study aims to establish the comparative effectiveness of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA), renal denervation (RDN), darusentan and central arteriovenous anastomosis (CAA) for patients with ATRHTN by performing a network meta-analysis.

methodsData Sources: Studies from recent meta-analyses for RDN and placebo effect were supplemented with a systematic search for MRAs in ATRHTN in the Pubmed, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane databases through November 2016. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials comparing treatment options for patients with ATRHTN. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were extracted using predefined data extraction forms, including the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. A Bayesian random effects model was used to conduct a network meta-analysis. Spironolactone was used as the main comparator. Main Outcomes and Measures: Reduction in 24-h ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM).

resultsTwenty articles met our inclusion criteria, and seven treatment alternatives were compared. Compared to MRA, CAA had the highest probability of being more effective, further reducing 24-h SBP (-4.8 mmHg [-13.0, 3.7]) and 24-h DBP (-9.7 mmHg [-18, -0.63]). This difference is likely to be clinically meaningful, with a probability of 78 and 96% at a threshold of a 2-mmHg reduction in blood pressure.

conclusionsWhen compared to MRA as anchor, darusentan, CAA and RDN are not more effective in achieving a clinically significant reduction in ambulatory blood pressure in individuals with apparent treatment-resistant hypertension.

Indexed as

Disease ManagementPractice Guidelines as TopicBlood PressureHumansHypertensionMRAsnetwork meta-analysistreatment-resistant hypertension

Identifiers

PMID28275946
PMCPMC5515781
OpenAlexW2593887435

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.