ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2025
A clinical prediction model for blood pressure changes after renal denervation in patients with resistant hypertension.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2025. 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.
- Artificial Intelligence Techniques in Cardiac Neuromodulation: Mechanisms, Applications, and Pathways to Clinical Translation.Journal of arrhythmia · 2026Review
- Development and Internal Validation of a Web-Based Dynamic Nomogram for Dynamic Risk Stratification of Early Bacterial Infection in Liver Transplant Recipients.Annals of transplantation · 2026Article
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
Objective: To develop clinical prediction models to estimate blood pressure changes in hypertensive patients undergoing renal denervation (RDN). Methods: This single-center, prospective interventional study enrolled 70 hypertensive patients undergoing RDN between July 2022 and December 2023, with clinical data collected systematically before and after the procedure. Variable selection for modeling was performed through a rigorous process incorporating univariate analysis and clinical relevance assessment. Subsequently, two distinct clinical prediction models were developed and subjected to comparative evaluation. The primary outcomes were the absolute changes in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at 6 months after RDN. Results: In both Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) and Ridge regression models, seven variables [including index of microvascular resistance (IMR), preoperative SBP, age and creatinine] were significantly associated with SBP change, while four variables were significantly associated with DBP change. In the prediction model on SBP change, compared to the OLS model, the Ridge regression exhibited lower prediction errors [mean absolute error [MAE]: 6.40 vs. 6.95; mean squared error [MSE]: 65.58 vs. 76.15] and a higher R² (0.79 vs. 0.72). In the DBP model, the Ridge regression also achieved a lower MAE (3.62 vs. 3.73) and a higher R² (0.77 vs. 0.71). Conclusion: This study developed and compared predictive models for estimating blood pressure response at 6-month follow-up after RDN in patients with resistant hypertension. The Ridge regression model exhibited superior predictive accuracy and model stability. The model indicated that IMR was a factor associated with postoperative blood pressure reduction. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier, ChiCTR2200058696.
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.