ArticleWorld journal of cardiology2026
Comparative efficacy and safety of chlorthalidone
Article in World journal of cardiology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHypertension is among the leading causes of cardiovascular diseases, including myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and heart failure. The thiazide diuretics of chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide are commonly prescribed in the control of blood pressure. Although they are effective, there has been debate regarding their relative efficacy and safety, particularly with respect to cardiovascular events.
aimTo determine the relative efficacy and safety of hydrochlorothiazide
methodsPubMed and Google Scholar databases were searched for comparative studies of hydrochlorothiazide
resultsChlorthalidone was associated with greater reductions in systolic blood pressure [mean difference: 5.18 mmHg, 95% confidence interval (CI): 4.28-6.08] and diastolic blood pressure (2.91 mmHg, 95%CI: 1.96-3.87) compared to hydrochlorothiazide. Interestingly, chlorthalidone also demonstrated superior nocturnal blood pressure control (
conclusionThe present meta-analysis suggests that chlorthalidone is more effective than hydrochlorothiazide in reducing both systolic and diastolic blood pressure, particularly at night. Although both drugs share comparable cardiovascular event safety profiles, chlorthalidone carries a higher risk of inducing hypokalemia. These findings emphasize the need for individualized treatment strategies in the management of hypertension based on the varying efficacy and safety profiles of chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide.
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.