SynthesisFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Efficacy and safety of intensive vs. standard blood pressure control: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of intensive systolic blood pressure (SBP) control (target SBP < 120 mmHg) vs. standard blood pressure control (target SBP < 140 mmHg) in reducing cardiovascular risk. Methods: We conducted a systematic search of the Cochrane Library, Embase, and PubMed databases, covering the period from the inception of each database to February 11, 2025, to identify randomized controlled trials comparing these two blood pressure control targets. Efficacy outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular events, heart failure, stroke, myocardial infarction, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality. Safety outcomes included hypotension, syncope, falls, and renal dysfunction. Results: Five randomized controlled trials involving 39,433 patients were included. Compared to standard blood pressure control, intensive blood pressure control was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.75-0.86; Conclusion: Based on currently available evidence, intensive blood pressure control may reduce the risk of cardiovascular events and mortality compared to standard blood pressure control, but it may increase the risk of hypotension and syncope.
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.