ReviewDiabetologia2018
Blood pressure targets in type 2 diabetes. Evidence against or in favour of an aggressive approach.
Review in Diabetologia, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- [Individualizing antihypertensive therapy in diabetes mellitus. Guidelines of the Austrian Diabetes Association (Update 2026)].Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2026Guideline
- [Individualising antihypertensive therapy in patients with diabetes. A guideline by the Austrian Diabetes Association (update 2023)].Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2023Guideline
- Low Achieved Systolic Blood Pressure Related to Kidney Protection in Diabetic and Non-Diabetic High-Risk Hypertensive Patients.American journal of hypertension · 2025Trial
- Randomized Clinical Outcome Trials in Hypertension.Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) · 2024Review
- Impact of Diabetes Mellitus and Its Comorbidities on Elderly Patients Hospitalized in Internal Medicine Wards: Data from the RePoSi Registry.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Effect of eggplant (Iranian journal of basic medical sciences · 2021Review
- [Austrian Consensus on High Blood Pressure 2019].Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2019Article
- Association Between Early Hypertension Control and Cardiovascular Disease Incidence in Veterans With Diabetes.Diabetes care · 2019Article
- [Individualising antihypertensive therapy in patients with diabetes. A guideline by the Austrian Diabetes Association (Update 2019)].Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2019Review
- The impact of antihypertensive pharmacotherapy on interplay between protein-bound uremic toxin (indoxyl sulfate) and markers of inflammation in patients with chronic kidney disease.International urology and nephrology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When associated with high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes mellitus is characterised by a high risk of adverse cardiovascular (CV) and renal outcomes. However, both can be effectively reduced by antihypertensive treatment. Current guidelines on the treatment of hypertension emphasize the need to effectively treat high blood pressure in diabetic individuals, but their recommendations differ in terms of the optimal target blood pressure value to aim for in order to maximise CV and renal protection. In some guidelines the recommended target blood pressure values are <140/90 mmHg (systolic/diastolic), whereas in others, blood pressure values close or even less than 130/80 mmHg are recommended. This paper will discuss the evidence for and against a conservative or more aggressive blood pressure target for treated diabetic hypertensive individuals based on the evidence provided by randomised trials, trial meta-analyses and large observational studies. Based on the available evidence, it appears that blood pressure targets will probably have to be lower than <140/90 mmHg, and that values approaching 130/80 mmHg should be recommended. However, evidence in favour of even lower systolic values, i.e. <130 mmHg, is limited and is definitively against a reduction to <120 mmHg.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29372279What 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.