Trial reportBMJ open2021
Intensive versus standard blood pressure control in type 2 diabetes: a restricted mean survival time analysis of a randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It reports registered trial NCT00000620. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD)
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effect of HbA1c variability on the efficacy of intensive blood pressure control in patients with type 2 diabetes.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2025Trial
- Alzheimer's Disease as Type 3 Diabetes: Understanding the Link and Implications.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Assessing treatment effects with adjusted restricted mean time lost in observational competing risks data.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- Some patients with type 2 diabetes may benefit from intensive glycaemic and blood pressure control: A post-hoc machine learning analysis of ACCORD trial data.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2024Article
- Restricted Mean Survival Time Analysis to Estimate SGLT2i-Associated Heterogeneous Treatment Effects on Primary and Secondary Prevention of Cardiorenal Outcomes in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes in Taiwan.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- Intensive Versus Standard Blood Pressure Lowering and Days Free of Cardiovascular Events and Serious Adverse Events: a Post Hoc Analysis of Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial.Journal of general internal medicine · 2022Article
- Article
- Current perspectives on prevention of vascular cognitive impairment and promotion of vascular brain health.Expert review of neurotherapeuticsReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRestricted mean survival time analysis offers an intuitive and robust summary of treatment effect compared with HRs.
objectiveTo examine the effect of intensive versus standard blood pressure (BP) control on death or cardiovascular events in type 2 diabetes.
designSecondary analysis of the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes Blood Pressure trial.
setting77 sites in the USA and Canada.
participants4733 adults with type 2 diabetes at high risk for cardiovascular events.
interventionsSystolic BP target <120 mm Hg (n=2371) versus <140 mm Hg (n=2362). MEASUREMENTS: Composite endpoint of death, non-fatal myocardial infarction or non-fatal stroke.
resultsThe mean event-free survival time over 5 years (1825 days) was similar between intensive and standard BP control (1716 vs 1714 days; mean difference, 1.3 (95% CI -18.1 to 20.7) days). However, intensive BP treatment was more beneficial for those assigned to standard glycaemic control (1725 vs 1697 days; mean difference, 28.1 (95% CI 0.4 to 55.9) days), but not for those assigned to intensive glycaemic control (1706 vs 1731 days; mean difference, -25.2 (95% CI -52.3 to 1.9) days) (p=0.008 for interaction). In subgroup analysis, the mean event-free survival time difference between intensive and standard BP treatment was -76.0 (95% CI -131.8 to -20.3) days for those with cognitive impairment and 21.8 (95% CI -24.0 to 67.5) days for those with normal cognitive function (p=0.008 for interaction). The effect was not different by age, sex and baseline cardiovascular disease status.
conclusionsIntensive BP treatment may reduce death and cardiovascular events among patients with type 2 diabetes receiving standard glycaemic treatment and without cognitive impairment. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00000620; Post-results.
Indexed as
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.