Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31670874›Full record

Trial reportJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2019

Effectiveness of blood pressure-lowering treatment by the levels of baseline Framingham risk score: A post hoc analysis of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT).

Ling Zhang, Xiuting Sun, Lizhen Liao, Shaozhao Zhang, Huimin Zhou, Xiangbin Zhong, Xiaodong Zhuang, Xinxue Liao

Open access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report 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 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Blood pressure lowering treatment and the Framingham score: Do not fear risk.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2019
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ling ZhangDepartment of Geriatrics, the First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Xiuting SunCardiology Department, the First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Lizhen LiaoGuangzhou Higher Education Mega Center, Guangdong Pharmaceutical University, Guangzhou, China.
Shaozhao ZhangCardiology Department, the First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Huimin ZhouCardiology Department, the First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Xiangbin ZhongCardiology Department, the First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Xiaodong ZhuangCardiology Department, the First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0001-6508-8507
Xinxue LiaoCardiology Department, the First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0002-2993-1066
Sun Yat-sen University · CNGuangdong Pharmaceutical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This was a post hoc analysis of Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT), aimed to investigate whether intensive blood pressure treatment has differential therapeutic outcomes on patients with different baseline Framingham risk score (FRS). The 9298 SPRINT participants were categorized into low-risk (baseline FRS < 10%), intermediate-risk (FRS = 10%-20%), or high-risk (FRS > 20%) arms. 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. Serious adverse events were defined as hypotension, syncope, and bradycardia. Multiple Cox regression was used to calculate hazard ratios for study outcomes with intensive compared with standard SBP treatment between these three groups. After a median follow-up time of 3.26 years, the primary outcome hazard ratio (HR) for intensive versus standard treatment was 0.73 (95% CI: 0.61-0.88, P = .0044) in the high-risk arm. And, for all-cause mortality, the hazard ratio with intensive SBP treatment was 1.58 (95% CI: 0.55-1.06), 0.9 (95% CI: 0.26-9.50), and 0.53 (95% CI: 0.34-0.82) in three arms (all P values for interaction > 0.05). Effects of intensive versus standard SBP control on serious adverse events were similar among patients with different FRS. Our results suggested that regardless of the FRS level, the intensive blood pressure control was beneficial.

Indexed as

Acute Coronary SyndromeAcute Kidney InjuryAgedAged, 80 and overAntihypertensive AgentsBlood PressureBradycardiaCase-Control StudiesDeathFemaleHeart FailureHumansHypertensionHypotensionMaleMiddle AgedAntihypertensive Agentscardiovascular diseaseFramingham risk scoreintensive blood pressure treatmentSystolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT)

Identifiers

PMID31670874
PMCPMC8030550
OpenAlexW2984132024

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.