ReviewJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2021
Systematic reviews of antihypertensive drugs: A review of publication trends, characteristics, and quality.
Review in Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Renal Safety of Telminuvo, a Single Pill Combination of Telmisartan and S-amlodipine, in Korean Hypertensive Patients: A Multicenter, Retrospective Cohort Study.Electrolyte & blood pressure : E & BP · 2025Article
- Anti-inflammatory activity of benidipine hydrochloride in LPS-activated mammalian macrophages.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2024Article
- Association between antihypertensive medication and the risk of urinary tract infection (UTI) of outpatients: a retrospective cohort study.Infection · 2023Article
- Systematic reviews of antihypertensive drugs: A review of publication trends, characteristics, and quality.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This review presents publication trends, characteristics, and quality of systematic reviews (SRs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of antihypertensive drugs (AHTDs). Between 1985 and 2017, 1,173 SRs were published, and in the last 20 years, 10, 35, and 116 were published in the year 1996, 2006, and 2016, respectively. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers were the most common class of drugs studied. Fourteen percent of the SRs were prospectively registered/published protocol. Three-fourth of the SRs did not report a full search strategy, and 45% did not report a PRISMA or similar diagram. Of the 34 SRs published in the five high impact factor journals in the last 10 years, 15%, 21%, and 65% have unclear, low, and high risk of bias, respectively. There has been a steady increase in the publication of SRs of RCTs of AHTDs. However, adherence to standard methods of conduct and reporting continues to be low.
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.