ArticleJournal of human hypertension2026
How do patients with primary hypertension assess different endpoints of their treatment? a survey using analytic hierarchy process.
Article in Journal of human hypertension, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Effects of antihypertensive therapy are estimated in clinical trials. There is a need to prioritize the endpoints according to patients' preferences. 26 patients from two regions of Germany rated in 2019 their preferences regarding the importance of various endpoints of hypertension treatment (Mortality, Myocardial infarction, Stroke, Heart failure, and subdivided Adverse events) by a pairwise comparison of individual endpoints. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), a multi-criteria decision analysis method was used to generate relative weights for each endpoint. The robustness of the results was defined by means of consistency. The elicitation yielded the following aggregated group weights: Stroke 0.320, Mortality 0.297, Myocardial infarction 0.202, Heart failure 0.119, and Adverse events 0.062, subdivided in Dyspnea, Pain, Edema, and Cough. The overall consistency reached for efficacy endpoints a consistency ratio below 0.1 (safety endpoints = 0.04) without exceeding established limits. In all sensitivity analyses but one, no rank reversal was observed, and Stroke was rated highest. Individual weights varied extensively. Some participants weighted Mortality (0.021-0.686) higher than Stroke (0.078-0.615) and Heart failure (0,021-0,469) higher than Myocardial infarction (0,047-0.431). Individual inconsistency exceeded the limits in almost half of the cases, with gender, therapy duration, and therapeutic scheme being explaining variables for inconsistency within binary logistic regression models. AHP can be used to obtain preferences of patients with primary hypertension for effectiveness and safety endpoints. Preference elicitation could provide important information for drug assessment (group weights) and shared decision-making (individual weights) following the concept of patient-centeredness at system and patient level.
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.