ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2026
Intensive vs standard blood pressure control in adults with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and GRADE-based meta-analysis.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The optimal blood pressure (BP) target for older adults with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) remains controversial. This meta-analysis compares intensive BP control (IBPC) versus standard BP control in T2DM patients. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, we searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central through March 2025 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IBPC (target <130/80 mm Hg) with standard control (<140/90 mm Hg) in adults ≥35 years with T2DM. Primary outcome was a composite of nonfatal stroke, nonfatal myocardial infarction, cardiovascular (CV) death, or heart failure hospitalization. Secondary outcomes included microvascular complications and safety. Data were pooled using random-effects models ( Results: Ten RCTs ( Conclusion: In T2DM patients, IBPC reduces cardiovascular events and microvascular complications without increasing adverse events, supporting lower BP targets (<130/80 mm Hg). Diastolic BP control may offer additional mortality benefits.
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.