Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29462508›Full record

SynthesisJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2018

Comparative effectiveness of an angiotensin receptor blocker, olmesartan medoxomil, in older hypertensive patients.

Josep Redon, Michael A Weber, Paul-Egbert Reimitz, Ji-Guang Wang

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Single-Pill Combination with Three Antihypertensive Agents to Improve Blood Pressure Control in Hypertension: Focus on Olmesartan-Based Combinations.High blood pressure & cardiovascular prevention : the official journal of the Italian Society of Hypertension · 2023
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Josep RedonINCLIVA Research Institute, Universitat de València, Valencia, Spain.
Michael A WeberState University of New York, Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY, USA.
Paul-Egbert ReimitzDaiichi Sankyo Europe GmbH, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6248-4691
Ji-Guang WangShanghai Key Laboratory of Hypertension, Department of Hypertension, Centre for Epidemiological Studies and Clinical Trials, The Shanghai Institute of Hypertension, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.ORCID 0000-0001-8511-1524
Daiichi Sankyo (Germany) · DERuijin Hospital · CNState University of New York · USUniversitat de València · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The efficacy and safety of olmesartan medoxomil (OM) vs active control (AC) monotherapy among elderly patients aged 60-79 years (N = 4487) was evaluated by meta-analysis (25 studies). In all patients, change from baseline to end point in blood pressure (BP) was significantly greater with OM vs AC (-19.5/-11.9 vs -16.8/-10.7 mm Hg). Greater proportions of OM- vs AC-treated patients achieved BP goals. In patients with impaired renal function (estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m

Indexed as

AgedAngiotensin Receptor AntagonistsBlood PressureHumansHypertensionMiddle AgedOlmesartan MedoxomilTreatment OutcomeAngiotensin Receptor AntagonistsOlmesartan Medoxomilelderlyhypertensionolmesartan medoxomil

Identifiers

PMID29462508
PMCPMC8031060
OpenAlexW2793933230

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.