ArticleJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2018
Differences in primary cardiovascular disease prevention between the 2013 and 2016 cholesterol guidelines and impact of the 2017 hypertension guideline in the United States.
Article 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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Long-Term Impact of the Great Chinese Famine on the Risks of Specific Arrhythmias and Severe Hypertension in the Offspring at an Early Stage of Aging.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Analysis of Influencing Factors for Chronic Diseases: A Large Sample Epidemiological Survey from Liaoyang.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2022Article
- Analysis of epidemiological trends in chronic diseases of Chinese residents.Aging medicine (Milton (N.S.W)) · 2020Article
- Differences in primary cardiovascular disease prevention between the 2013 and 2016 cholesterol guidelines and impact of the 2017 hypertension guideline in the United States.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The US Preventive Services Task Force cholesterol guideline recommended statins for fewer adults than the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guideline by setting a higher 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease threshold (≥10.0% vs ≥7.5%) and requiring concomitant diabetes mellitus, hypertension, dyslipidemia, or cigarette smoking. The 2017 ACC/AHA hypertension guideline lowered the hypertension threshold, increasing 2016 guideline statin-eligible adults. Cross-sectional data on US adults aged 40 to 75 years enabled estimated numbers for the 2013 guideline and 2016 guideline with hypertension thresholds of ≥140/≥90 mm Hg and ≥130/80 mm Hg, respectively, on: (1) untreated, statin-eligible adults for primary atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease prevention (25.40, 14.72, 15.35 million); (2) atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events prevented annually (124 000, 70 852, 73 199); (3) number needed to treat (21, 21, 21); and (4) number needed to harm (38, 143, 143) per 1000 patient-years for incident diabetes mellitus (42 800, 6700, 7100 cases per year). Despite the lower hypertension threshold, the 2013 cholesterol guideline qualifies approximately 10 million more adults for statins and prevents approximately 50 600 more primary atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events but induces approximately 35 700 more diabetes mellitus cases annually than the 2016 guideline.
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.