ReviewJournal of family medicine and primary care2023
Critical analysis of American heart association and European society of cardiology guidelines for hypertension.
Review in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Blood pressure changes during different methods of resistance training in normotensive and stage 1 hypertensive individuals: a repeated measures cross-sectional study.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2025Article
- The effects of the atrial natriuretic peptide deficiency on renal cortical mitochondrial bioenergetics in the Dahl SS rat.FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study places more of an emphasis on the hypertensive guidelines that are recommended for the management of hypertension by the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA), as well as the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Society of Hypertension (ESH). This study examines the development of several different guidelines and focuses primarily on contrasting the similarities and differences that are given by American and European guidelines. Both sets of recommendations encourage the use of an optimal method for measuring blood pressure, such as the use of home blood pressure (BP) monitoring, or ambulatory monitoring, which a key recommendation is given by both sets of recommendations for the primary prevention of hypertension, and non-pharmacological treatment, such as modifying one's lifestyle, as the primary intervention. There are some differences between American and European BP treatment guidelines when it comes to determining what constitutes high BP and determining what BP level should serve as the treatment goal. To start pharmacological therapy, the AHA and ACC suggest maintaining a BP of at least 130/80 mmHg with an ASCVD positive or a cardiovascular risk of more than 10%, but the ESH and ESC propose maintaining a BP of at least 140-159/90-99 mmHg. Following American rules, high BP is divided into two stages; however, according to European recommendations, it is divided into three stages. Both sets of recommendations strongly encourage the use of combination therapies that only require one pill, such as single-pill treatment for multiple conditions, and both sets of recommendations restrict the use of certain drugs, such as beta-blockers, to patients who also have additional medical conditions.
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.