ArticleCurrent controlled trials in cardiovascular medicine2005
Beyond the Evidence of the New Hypertension Guidelines. Blood pressure measurement - is it good enough for accurate diagnosis of hypertension? Time might be in, for a paradigm shift (I).
Article in Current controlled trials in cardiovascular medicine, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Determining which automatic digital blood pressure device performs adequately: a systematic review.Journal of human hypertension · 2010Pooled it
- Association of plasma acylcarnitines and amino acids with hypertension: A nationwide metabolomics study.PloS one · 2023Trial
- Difference in blood pressure readings with mercury and automated devices: Impact on hypertension prevalence estimates in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.European journal of epidemiology · 2006Trial
- Novel Index of Maladaptive Myocardial Remodeling in Hypertension.Circulation. Cardiovascular imaging · 2017Article
- Short-term blood pressure variability - variation between arm side, body position and successive measurements: a population-based cohort study.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2017Observational
- Ameliorative Effect of Hydroethanolic Leaf Extract of Byrsocarpus coccineus in Alcohol- and Sucrose-Induced Hypertension in Rats.Journal of traditional and complementary medicine · 2014Article
- Nurse-driven training courses: impact on implementation of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.The open nursing journal · 2013Article
- Evaluation of blood pressure measurement and agreement in an academic health sciences center.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2012Article
- Clinical trials of antihypertensives: Nature of control and design.Indian journal of pharmacology · 2011Article
- Agreement of medical decisions in occupational health as a quality requirement.International archives of occupational and environmental health · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite widespread availability of a large body of evidence in the area of hypertension, the translation of that evidence into viable recommendations aimed at improving the quality of health care is very difficult, sometimes to the point of questionable acceptability and overall credibility of the guidelines advocating those recommendations.The scientific community world-wide and especially professionals interested in the topic of hypertension are witnessing currently an unprecedented debate over the issue of appropriateness of using different drugs/drug classes for the treatment of hypertension. An endless supply of recent and less recent "drug-news", some in support of, others against the current guidelines, justifying the use of selected types of drug treatment or criticising other, are coming out in the scientific literature on an almost weekly basis. The latest of such debate (at the time of writing this paper) pertains the safety profile of ARBs vs ACE inhibitors.To great extent, the factual situation has been fuelled by the new hypertension guidelines (different for USA, Europe, New Zeeland and UK) through, apparently small inconsistencies and conflicting messages, that might have generated substantial and perpetuating confusion among both prescribing physicians and their patients, regardless of their country of origin.The overwhelming message conveyed by most guidelines and opinion leaders is the widespread use of diuretics as first-line agents in all patients with blood pressure above a certain cut-off level and the increasingly aggressive approach towards diagnosis and treatment of hypertension. This, apparently well-justified, logical and easily comprehensible message is unfortunately miss-obeyed by most physicians, on both parts of the Atlantic.Amazingly, the message assumes a universal simplicity of both diagnosis and treatment of hypertension, while ignoring several hypertension-specific variables, commonly known to have high level of complexity, such as:- accuracy of recorded blood pressure and the great inter-observer variability,- diversity in the competency and training of diagnosing physician,- individual patient/disease profile with highly subjective preferences,- difficulty in reaching consensus among opinion leaders,- pharmaceutical industry's influence, and, nonetheless,- the large variability in the efficacy and safety of the antihypertensive drugs.The present 2-series article attempts to identify and review possible causes that might have, at least in part, generated the current healthcare anachronism (I); to highlight the current trend to account for the uncertainties related to the fixed blood pressure cut-off point and the possible solutions to improve accuracy of diagnosis and treatment of hypertension (II).
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.