SynthesisAnnals of medicine2026
Effect of intensive versus standard blood pressure control on cardiovascular outcomes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Annals of medicine, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis meta-analysis systematically evaluated the impact of intensive (typically targeting systolic BP [SBP] <120 or <130 mmHg) versus standard (typically targeting SBP <140 mmHg) blood pressure control on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with hypertension. MATERIALS AND
methodsRelevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to May 2025 were identified through systematic searches of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. A random-effects model was used to calculate pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
resultsThirty-one RCTs involving a total of 156,933 participants (mean age range of trial populations: 36.6 to 83.6 years; proportion of male participants: 34.5% to 69.4%; follow-up duration: 1.8 to 19.3 years) were included in the final meta-analysis. Compared to standard blood pressure control, intensive control significantly reduced the risk of major cardiovascular events (RR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.75-0.84;
conclusionIntensive blood pressure control (typically targeting SBP <120 or <130 mmHg) is strongly associated with a reduced risk of cardiovascular events. These findings support adopting lower blood pressure targets in clinical practice while emphasizing the need for individualized patient assessment.
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.