Cited by 129Blood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesDiabetes Treatment and ManagementDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins

Intensive and Standard Blood Pressure Targets in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

McBrien, Kerry, Rabi, Doreen M., Campbell, Norm, Barnieh, Lianne, Clement, Fiona, Hemmelgarn, Brenda R., Tonelli, Marcello, Leiter, Lawrence A. +2 more·2012·Archives of Internal Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND Treatment of hypertension in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) has been shown to improve cardiovascular outcomes; however, the value of intensive blood pressure (BP) targets remains uncertain. We sought to determine the effectiveness and safety of treating BP to intensive targets (upper limit of 130 mm Hg systolic and 80 mm Hg diastolic) compared with standard targets (upper limit of 140-160 mm Hg systolic and 85-100 mm Hg diastolic) in patients with type 2 DM. METHODS Using electronic databases, bibliographies, and clinical trial registries, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify randomized trials enrolling adults diagnosed as having type 2 DM and comparing prespecified BP targets. Data on study characteristics, risk for bias, and outcomes were collected. Random-effects models were used to pool relative risks and risk differences for mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke. RESULTS The use of intensive BP targets was not associated with a significant decrease in the risk for mortality (relative risk difference, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.55-1.05) or myocardial infarction (relative risk difference, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.80-1.08) but was associated with a decrease in the risk for stroke (relative risk, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.48-0.86). The pooled analysis of risk differences associated with the use of intensive BP targets demonstrated a small absolute decrease in the risk for stroke (absolute risk difference, -0.01; 95% CI, -0.02 to -0.00) but no statistically significant difference in the risk for mortality or myocardial infarction. CONCLUSION Although the use of intensive compared with standard BP targets in patients with type 2 DM is associated with a small reduction in the risk for stroke, evidence does not show that intensive targets reduce the risk for mortality or myocardial infarction.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archinternmed.2012.3147

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McBrien, K., Rabi, D. M., Campbell, N., Barnieh, L., Clement, F., Hemmelgarn, B. R., Tonelli, M., Leiter, L. A., Klarenbach, S. W., & Manns, B. J.
Corresponding author
Manns, Braden J.
Venue
Archives of Internal Medicine
Published
2012-09-24
Volume
172
Issue
17
Pages
1296
ISSN
0003-9926 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2025545342
Cited by
129
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 9
FWCI
9.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Keywords
type 2 diabetes, hypertension, blood pressure targets, intensive blood pressure control, antihypertensive therapy, stroke risk, myocardial infarction, mortality, cardiovascular outcomes

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review