ReviewThe Canadian journal of cardiology2019
Evolution of Blood Pressure Clinical Practice Guidelines: A Personal Perspective.
Review in The Canadian journal of cardiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intensive Blood Pressure Treatment Goals: Evidence for Cardiovascular Protection From Observational Studies and Clinical Trials.American journal of hypertension · 2022Pooled it
- Evolution in the targets for blood pressure treatment.Current opinion in nephrology and hypertension · 2026Review
- The Evolution of High Blood Pressure Guidelines in the United States: A 50-Year Arc.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2025Article
- Use and Cost Patterns of Antihypertensive Medications in the United States From 1996 to 2021.Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) · 2024Article
- Editors' Commentary on the 2023 ESH Management of Arterial Hypertension Guidelines.Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) · 2023Article
- Apparent treatment-resistant hypertension associated lifetime cardiovascular risk in a longitudinal national registry.European journal of preventive cardiology · 2023Article
- Global proliferation and clinical consequences of non-validated automated BP devices.Journal of human hypertension · 2023Review
- GPs' mindlines on deprescribing antihypertensives in older patients with multimorbidity: a qualitative study in English general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Before the second half of the 20th century, most clinical decision making was based on expert opinion. By the 1960s, experience in actuarial and research cohort studies had provided strong evidence that blood pressure was an important risk factor for cardiovascular disease. The landmark 1967 and 1970 Veterans Administration Cooperative Study trials confirmed the value of antihypertensive drug therapy in preventing stroke, myocardial infarction, and heart failure in adults with high levels of diastolic blood pressure. They also provided an impetus to develop the first blood-pressure-related clinical practice guideline in 1977. In subsequent years, more structured and comprehensive blood-pressure guidelines have evolved to become a major resource in clinical and public health practice. Despite some limitations, these guidelines provide useful evidence-based guidance for diagnosis and management of high blood pressure. The core advice in most of the current comprehensive blood pressure guidelines is more similar than different. Modelling studies suggest that better adherence to guideline recommendations would result in a lower average blood pressure and substantial improvement in public health.
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.