ArticleJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2017
Comparative risk of new-onset diabetes mellitus for antihypertensive drugs: A network meta-analysis.
Article in Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evidence-based blood tests for monitoring adults with hypertension in primary care: rapid review, routine data analyses, and consensus study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026Review
- Incidence and Risk Factors for Developing Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus After Acute Myocardial Infarction-A Long-Term Follow-Up.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Article
- Four-year changes in central fatness, risk of diabetes, and metabolic control in older adults: a cohort study with mediation analysis.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2022Article
- Fixed-dose combination of amlodipine and atorvastatin improves clinical outcomes in patients with concomitant hypertension and dyslipidemia.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2020Article
- Japanese Clinical Practice Guideline for Diabetes 2019.Diabetology international · 2020Review
- Japanese Clinical Practice Guideline for Diabetes 2019.Journal of diabetes investigation · 2020Article
- Comparative risk of new-onset diabetes mellitus for antihypertensive drugs in elderly: A Bayesian network meta-analysis.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2019Article
- Angiotensin Receptor Blockers Versus Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors for the Treatment of Arterial Hypertension and the Role of Olmesartan.Advances in therapy · 2019Review
- Comparison of Clinical and Physiological Parameters for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia in Hypertensive and Normotensive Patients.Frontiers in physiology · 2018Article
- Comparative risk of new-onset diabetes mellitus for antihypertensive drugs: A network meta-analysis.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
New-onset diabetes mellitus (NOD) refers to forms of diabetes mellitus that develop during the therapeutic processes of other diseases such as hypertension. This study has been conducted in a network meta-analysis to compare antihypertensive drugs by identifying both the advantages and disadvantages on NOD by focusing on their respective effect rates. Odd ratios and corresponding 95% confidence intervals or credible intervals were calculated within pairwise and network meta-analysis. A total of 38 articles with 224 140 patients were included to evaluate the preventive effect of hypertension drugs on NOD. From the network meta-analysis it was evident that both angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor as well as angiotensin receptor blocker treatments are associated with a lower risk of developing NOD compared with placebo, with ranking probabilities of 79.81% and 72.77%, respectively, while β-blockers and calcium channel blockers may significantly increase the probability of developing NOD (β-blockers: odds ratio, 2.18 [95% credible intervals: 1.36-3.50]; calcium channel blockers: odds ratio, 1.16 [95% credible intervals, 1.05-1.29]). In conclusion, angiotensin receptor blockers have an advantage over the other treatments regarding the NOD.
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.