ReviewCurrent hypertension reports2018
Big Data and Blood Pressure Control: Insights from the PAMELA and BP-CARE Study Cohorts.
Review in Current hypertension reports, 2018. 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.
- Blood pressure management to prevent recurrent stroke: current evidence and perspectives.NPJ cardiovascular health · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewThe paper examines the patterns of BP control achieved in two large scale observational studies, i.e., the Pressioni Arteriose Monitorate E Loro Associazioni (PAMELA) study and the Blood Pressure control rate and CArdiovascular Risk profilE (BP-CARE), carried out in the general population and in treated hypertensive patients, respectively. RECENT
findingsIt is well known that only a minor fraction among the treated hypertensive patients exhibits a good blood pressure control. However, few study investigated blood pressure control on the basis not only of office, but also home and ambulatory blood pressure measurement, examining its impact on organ damage. In the whole sample of the PAMELA study, only in about 21.1% of cases treated hypertensive subjects exhibit a well-controlled office BP. Control of systolic blood pressure was rarer than the diastolic one. Control of home and, even more, ambulatory blood pressure was more frequent. Left ventricular mass was not normalized even when blood pressure was adequately controlled. Most subjects of BP-CARE study show high or very high cardiovascular risk, due to concomitant risk factors and organ damage. The percentage of well-treated hypertensive patients is lower when CV risk is higher.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30051144What 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.