ReviewHypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979)2025
Clinical Trials in Hypertension: A Mathematical Endorsement for Diagnosis and Treatment.
Review in Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979), 2025. 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.
- Evolution in the targets for blood pressure treatment.Current opinion in nephrology and hypertension · 2026Review
- Antihypertensive Effects of Lotus Seed (Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The Role of Xenobiotic Caffeine on Cardiovascular Health: Promises and Challenges.Journal of xenobiotics · 2025Review
- Maximizing blood pressure lowering effects: a review of drug class comparisons and rationale for combination approaches.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Elevated blood pressure (BP) remains the leading cause of mortality globally, and efforts to control it have been disappointing. Meta-analyses of antihypertensive randomized controlled trials reveal a near-exact reversal of the BP-related risks identified in cohort studies. For an observed increase in cardiovascular disease risk of 12.5%, 25%, 50%, and 75% with a 5, 10, 20, or 40 mm Hg higher level of BP, respectively, the corresponding BP reductions in antihypertensive randomized controlled trial meta-analyses document a reversal of risks by 7%, 17% of 22%, 54%, and 64%, respectively, providing almost perfect mathematical concordance between the observed and expected benefit of antihypertensive treatment. Treatment benefits have been demonstrated across a wide range of baseline BPs and in individuals with and without prior established cardiovascular disease. Meta-analyses of antihypertensive treatment randomized controlled trials also indicate that the treatment benefits far outweigh any potential risks for adverse effects. The mathematical evidence of the effectiveness of BP-lowering in reducing the incidence of BP-related cardiovascular disease without imposing relevant adverse effects should be considered by clinicians and guideline committees in defining the diagnosis of hypertension and establishing antihypertensive treatment goals. Setting lower BP values for the diagnosis and treatment of hypertension could yield a substantial reduction in the global burden of disease due to high BP.
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.