Trial reportClinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society2019
Influence of baseline systolic blood pressure on the relationship between intensive blood pressure control and cardiovascular outcomes in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT).
Trial report in Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Visualizing Time-Varying Effect in Survival Analysis: 5 Complementary Plots to Kaplan-Meier Curve.Oxidative medicine and cellular longevity · 2022Article
- Association between blood pressure levels and cardiovascular deaths: a 20-year follow-up study in rural China.BMJ open · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo determine whether the effects of intensive (< 120 mmHg) compared with standard (< 140 mmHg) systolic blood pressure (SBP) treatments are different among those with different baseline SBP.
methodsDe-identified SPRINT database was used for this post hoc analysis. SPRINT participants were categorized by baseline SBP status, defined as high-SBP (≥ 140 mmHg) group versus the low-SBP (< 140 mmHg) group. The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome not resulting in myocardial infarction, stroke, acute decompensated heart failure, or death from cardiovascular causes. Treatment-related adverse events including hypotension, syncope, and bradycardia were also evaluated. Cox regression was used to calculate hazard ratios for study outcomes with intensive compared with standard SBP treatment between these two groups.
resultsAmong 9361 participants randomized (age 67.9 ± 9.4 years; 35.5% female), 4964 and 4397 had baseline low SBP (< 140 mmHg) and high SBP (≥ 140 mmHg), respectively. After a median follow-up of 3.26 years, the hazard ratio for the primary outcome was 0.65 (95% CI 0.50, 0.83) and 0.84 (95% CI 0.66, 1.06) among those in the low-SBP group and high-SBP group, respectively (P value for interaction 0.15). For treatment-related adverse events, the hazard ratio with intensive SBP treatment was 2.03 (95% CI 1.44, 2.85) for the low-SBP group and 1.80 (95% CI 1.32, 2.47) for the high-SBP group (P value for interaction 0.28).
conclusionsHypertensive patients with low baseline SBP may benefit from intensive SBP lowering, whereas benefits were inconclusive among those with high baseline SBP.
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.