ReviewCureus2025
Impact of Intensive Blood Pressure Control Versus Standard Control on Cardiovascular Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy and safety of intensive vs. standard blood pressure control: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hypertension is one of the most frequent non-inherited risks to health that contributes to cardiovascular disease. Whereas the effects of reducing blood pressure are clear-cut, it is debatable what the optimal blood pressure level should be maintained. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare intensive blood pressure control with standard blood pressure control regarding cardiovascular outcomes, specifically focusing on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). We searched electronic databases comprehensively (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library) from inception up to March 2025 to find randomized controlled trials comparing intensive control of systolic blood pressure with standard control. The primary outcome was MACE, a composite measure including all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, and adverse events. Meta-analysis was performed using random effects to measure risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Our analysis incorporated 37,249 subjects from 12 randomized controlled trials. Intensive blood pressure control significantly decreased the odds of MACE (RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.73-0.88) compared to standard management. Notable reductions were also observed in cardiovascular mortality (RR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.67-0.90), stroke (RR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.68-0.90), and heart failure (RR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.61-0.88). However, intensive management was associated with higher risks of hypotension, syncope, electrolyte imbalance, and acute kidney injury. Overall, our results indicate that achieving lower blood pressure targets yields significant cardiovascular benefits, particularly in reducing MACE, cardiovascular mortality, stroke, and heart failure. However, these advantages must be weighed against the increased risk of adverse events. Treatment decisions should be individualized based on patient characteristics, risk factors, and preferences. Additionally, moderate heterogeneity was noted across studies, and the risk of bias was assessed, revealing good methodological quality overall.
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.