ArticleJournal of nephrology2025
Patient-specific multifactorial mortality risk assessment using classification and regression tree analysis in the context of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.
Article in Journal of nephrology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAmbulatory blood pressure monitoring is essential for understanding blood pressure patterns beyond clinical visits, aiding in risk assessment, treatment evaluation, and managing hypertension. This retrospective cohort study aimed to identify risk factors for all-cause mortality and major cardiovascular events in patients who underwent ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. METHODOLOGY: Eligible participants aged 18 or older, with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) > 60 ml/min/1.73 m
resultsThe study included 1291 patients, primarily male (51.8%) with a mean age of 61.1 ± 15.2 years. During a mean follow-up of 46.9 months, 76 (5.9%) patients died of any cause, and 195 (15.1%) had a cardiovascular event. The highest survival rates were observed in patients with a diastolic blood pressure (BP) dipping percentage between - 2% and 29%, nighttime systolic BP variability below 32 mmHg, and age below 72. Conversely, smokers with a diastolic BP dipping percentage below - 10% showed the lowest survival rates. The best cardiovascular outcomes were observed in patients with diastolic BP dipping above - 11%, nighttime mean systolic BP < 144 mmHg, no statin use, normotensive status, and daytime mean heart rate ≥ 60 bpm. Conversely, the worst outcomes were seen in patients with diastolic BP dipping below - 11% and a morning surge ≥ 14 mmHg. In all-cause mortality and cardiovascular event analysis, the combined model demonstrated excellent calibration and predictive power, like the classification and regression tree model and traditional analysis.
conclusionThese findings highlight the potential of a combined model for assessing mortality and cardiovascular event risk in patients who have undergone ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39503965What 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.