ArticleJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2019
Assessing the applicability of 2017 ACC/AHA hypertension guidelines for secondary stroke prevention in the BOSS study.
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.
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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Identification of causal plasma metabolite biomarkers for ischemic stroke using Mendelian randomization and mediation analysis.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- China stroke surveillance report 2021.Military Medical Research · 2023Review
- Assessing the applicability of 2017 ACC/AHA hypertension guidelines for secondary stroke prevention in the BOSS study.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
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Using data from the Blood Pressure and Clinical Outcome in TIA or Ischemic Stroke (BOSS) study, we aim to test the applicability and feasibility of stroke secondary prevention recommendations from the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline. Patients were categorized based on their blood pressure (BP) status at 3 months. The nonhypertension group was defined as those without a diagnosis of hypertension. The other patients were further divided into three subgroups according to office BP measured at 3-month visit (BP <130/80, 130-139/80-89, and ≥140/90 mm Hg). The primary outcome was any stroke within one year. The associations between BP status and 1-year prognosis (recurrent stroke, recurrent stroke/TIA, and poor functional outcome [modified Rankin scale score 3-6]) were estimated. Among 2341 IS/TIA patients, additional 1056 patients were classified as uncontrolled hypertension at the 90-day visit according to the new guidelines. Adjusted hazard/odds ratios (95% confidence intervals [CI]) for recurrent stroke in BP <130/80, 130-139/80-89, and ≥140/90 compared with nonhypertension group were 2.42 (95% CI: 0.87-6.76), and 4.30 (95% CI: 1.73-10.70), respectively. The prevalence of hypertension and uncontrolled BP among BOSS study population was substantially higher based on the new guidelines. BP of 130-139/80-89 did not show the worsened clinical outcomes compared with people without hypertension. Our study adds to the growing uncertainty about secondary prevention BP goal for IS/TIA 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.