Trial reportJournal of the American Heart Association2024
Incorporating Individual-Level Treatment Effects and Outcome Preferences Into Personalized Blood Pressure Target Recommendations.
Trial report in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intensive Blood Pressure Control and Cardiovascular Outcomes Across Cardiovascular-Kidney-Metabolic Syndrome Stages: A Post Hoc Analysis of the China Rural Hypertension Control Project.JAMA network open · 2026Trial
- Individualized Net Benefit of Intensive Blood Pressure Lowering Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults in SPRINT.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2025Trial
- The HM-TARGET personalised real-time haemodynamic targets in critical care.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Review of Blood Pressure Control in Vulnerable Older Adults: The Role of Frailty and Sarcopenia.Journal of vascular diseases · 2025Article
- Machine learning-based mortality prediction in critically ill patients with hypertension: comparative analysis, fairness, and interpretability.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Article
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
Abstract
backgroundThere are no shared decision-making frameworks for selecting blood pressure (BP) targets for individuals with hypertension. This study addressed whether results from the SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) could be tailored to individuals using predicted risks and simulated preferences. METHODS AND
resultsAmong 8202 SPRINT participants, Cox models were developed and internally validated to predict each individual's absolute difference in risk from intensive versus standard BP lowering for cardiovascular events, cognitive impairment, death, and serious adverse events (AEs). Individual treatment effects were combined using simulated preference weights into a net benefit, which represents a weighted sum of risk differences across outcomes. Net benefits were compared among those above versus below the median AE risk. In simulations for which cardiovascular, cognitive, and death events had much greater weight than the AEs of BP lowering, the median net benefit was 3.3 percentage points (interquartile range [IQR], 2.0-5.7), and 100% of participants had a net benefit favoring intensive BP lowering. When simulating benefits and harms to have similar weights, the median net benefit was 0.8 percentage points (IQR, 0.2-2.2), and 87% had a positive net benefit. Compared with participants at lower risk of AEs from BP lowering, those at higher risk had a greater net benefit from intensive BP lowering despite experiencing more AEs (
conclusionsMost SPRINT participants had a predicted net benefit that favored intensive BP lowering, but the degree of net benefit varied considerably. Tailoring BP targets using each patient's risks and preferences may provide more refined BP target recommendations.
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.