Observational studyJournal of human hypertension2026
Deviations in the diagnostic and management approach of hypertensive urgencies and emergencies in routine clinical practice as compared to the guidelines: a survey of physicians in tertiary hospitals.
Observational study in Journal of human hypertension, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Intravenous or peroral antihypertensive for patients with chest discomfort and very high blood pressure?Journal of human hypertension · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Elevated blood pressure (BP) ≥ 180/110 mmHg is a frequent cause of attendance to the Emergency Department (ED). Current hypertension guidelines clearly define a diagnostic and management approach for hypertensive urgencies (HUs) and emergencies (HEs). The aim of this study was to report on physicians' routine clinical practice regarding diagnosis and treatment of HUs and HEs. This observational cross-sectional study was conducted in tertiary hospitals of Thessaloniki, Greece. A specifically designed questionnaire was distributed to physicians working in the ED, who were actively implicated in the management of patients with HUs/HEs. Among 146 responders, only 54.1% correctly reported that HUs and HEs are characterized by an increase in BP ≥ 180/110 mmHg. Less than half (48.6%) stated that they routinely check for compliance with antihypertensive treatment. The vast majority routinely order an electrocardiogram (91.8%) and laboratory tests (79.5%) in patients attending the ED with BP ≥ 180/110 mmHg, but this percentage dropped to 61.0% for urinalysis. Only 21.2% routinely order a fundoscopic examination. Calcium channel blockers would be the first drug to administer by 63.0% of study participants to HUs, whereas only 40.4% would choose intravenous labetalol as the first-line antihypertensive medication for malignant hypertension. Subgroup analysis revealed significant differences according to the most prevalent ED specialties of Internal Medicine, General Practice and Cardiology. The diagnostic approach and therapeutic management of HUs or HEs may deviate significantly in real-life clinical practice compared to current recommendations by international hypertension guidelines. More efforts are warranted to educate physicians on this important clinical issue.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41315872What 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.