ArticleJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2019
Comparative risk of new-onset diabetes mellitus for antihypertensive drugs in elderly: A Bayesian network meta-analysis.
Article in Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness and safety of chronic diuretic use in older adults: an umbrella review of recently published systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized-controlled trials.European geriatric medicine · 2025Pooled it
- American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline: Developing a Diabetes Mellitus Comprehensive Care Plan-2022 Update.Endocrine practice : official journal of the American College of Endocrinology and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists · 2022Guideline
- Comparative risk of new-onset diabetes mellitus for antihypertensive drugs in elderly: A Bayesian network meta-analysis.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is no study to compare different class of antihypertensive drugs on new-onset diabetes mellitus (NOD) in elderly. We aimed to investigate the risk of antihypertensive drugs on NOD in elderly patients. The databases were retrieved in an orderly manner from the dates of their establishment to October, 2018, including Medline, Embase, Clinical Trials, and the Cochrane Database, to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of different antihypertensive drugs in elderly patients (age > 60 years). Then, a network meta-analysis was conducted using R and Stata 12.0 softwares. A total of 14 RCTs involving 74 042 patients were included. The relative risk of NOD mellitus associated with six classes of antihypertensive drugs was analyzed, including placebo, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), calcium channel blockers (CCBs), diuretics, and β blockers. Patients with ACEIs or ARBs appeared to have significantly reduced risk of NOD compare with placebo: ACEIs (OR = 0.49, 95% CrI 0.28-0.85), ARBs (OR = 0.37, 95% CrI 0.26-0.52), while CCBs, diuretics, and β blockers appeared to have not significantly reduced risk of NOD mellitus compare with placebo: CCBs (OR = 1.10, 95% CrI 0.85-1.60), diuretics (OR = 1.40, 95% CrI 0.92-2.50), β blockers (OR = 1.40, 95% CrI 0.93-2.10). The SUCRA of placebo, ACEIs, ARBs, CCBs, diuretics, and β blockers was, respectively, 65.3%, 69.3%, 92.3%, 44.1%, 12.1%, and 16.5%. According to the evidence, ARBs have an advantage over the other treatments in reducing the risk of NOD in elderly patients.
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.