ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2026
Effectiveness of thiazide diuretics in patients with hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2026. 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Thiazide diuretics are commonly prescribed for the treatment of hypertension (HTN). However, the comparative efficacy and safety of hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) versus chlorthalidone (CTD) in managing patients with HTN remain unclear. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed using two electronic databases, MEDLINE and Cochrane, from their inception through November 2024. The aim was to identify randomized controlled trials or observational double-arm studies assessing the effects of HCTZ versus CTD on cardiovascular outcomes and safety in patients with HTN. Outcomes were reported as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and analyses were conducted using a random effects model. A Results: Of the 409 articles identified in the initial search, six relevant studies were included in the final analysis. No significant differences were observed between the HCTZ and CTD arms for cardiovascular outcomes, including major adverse cardiovascular events, myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, and angina. However, patients receiving CTD experienced significantly higher rates of hypokalemia and hyponatremia compared to those on HCTZ. The risk of acute kidney injury did not differ significantly between the two groups. Conclusion: HCTZ and CTD showed comparable efficacy in terms of cardiovascular outcomes. Nevertheless, HCTZ appeared to have a safer profile, with a lower incidence of electrolyte imbalances, such as hypokalemia and hyponatremia, compared to CTD.
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.