Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31807315›Full record

ArticleClinical hypertension2019

Compelling therapy of LVH: straight (and not-so-straight) inferences from evidence.

Ravi Tejraj Mehta, Anil Pareek, Shruti Dharmadhikari

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical hypertension, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Ravi Tejraj MehtaIpca Laboratories Limited, Kandivli Industrial Estate, Kandivli (West), Mumbai, Maharashtra India.ORCID 0000-0001-6745-9391
Anil PareekIpca Laboratories Limited, Kandivli Industrial Estate, Kandivli (West), Mumbai, Maharashtra India.
Shruti DharmadhikariIpca Laboratories Limited, Kandivli Industrial Estate, Kandivli (West), Mumbai, Maharashtra India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We have read with interest the Korean Society of Hypertension guidelines for the management of hypertension and congratulate the Society for an extensive review of literature while drafting the guidelines. The guidelines indicate preferring ACE-I and CCB over diuretics in patients with left ventricle hypertrophy. However, in landmark head-to-head comparison trials, the thiazide-like diuretic chlorthalidone has been shown to be superior to ACE-I and CCB in decreasing left ventricle mass and preventing heart failure in hypertensive patients. Also, we put forth the paradoxical finding that mere regression of LVH may not always translate into reduction in risk of HF; and that the pleiotropic effects of chlorthalidone may be the explanation behind its beneficial action in HF.

Indexed as

ACE-inhibitorsAmlodipineCalcium channel blockersChlorthalidoneGuidelinesHeart failureHypertensionLeft ventricle hypertrophyThiazide diuretics

Identifiers

PMID31807315
PMCPMC6857286

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.