Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 423

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Association of Intensive vs Standard Blood Pressure Control With Cerebral White Matter Lesions

Open access
The SPRINT MIND Investigators for the SPRINT Research Group, Nasrallah, Ilya M., Pajewski, Nicholas M., Auchus, Alexander P., Chelune, Gordon, Cheung, Alfred K., Cleveland, Maryjo L., Coker, Laura H., Crowe, Michael G., Cushman, William C., Cutler, Jeffrey A., Davatzikos, Christos, Desiderio, Lisa, Doshi, Jimit, Erus, Guray, Fine, Larry J., Gaussoin, Sarah A., Harris, Darrin, Johnson, Karen C., Kimmel, Paul L., Kurella Tamura, Manjula, Launer, Lenore J., Lerner, Alan J., Lewis, Cora E., Martindale-Adams, Jennifer, Moy, Claudia S., Nichols, Linda O., Oparil, Suzanne, Ogrocki, Paula K., Rahman, Mahboob, Rapp, Stephen R., Reboussin, David M., Rocco, Michael V., Sachs, Bonnie C., Sink, Kaycee M., Still, Carolyn H., Supiano, Mark A., Snyder, Joni K., Wadley, Virginia G., Walker, Jennifer, Weiner, Daniel E., Whelton, Paul K., Wilson, Valerie M., Woolard, Nancy, Wright, Jackson T., Wright, Clinton B., Williamson, Jeff D., Bryan, R. Nick·2019·JAMA

Abstract

Importance: The effect of intensive blood pressure lowering on brain health remains uncertain. Objective: To evaluate the association of intensive blood pressure treatment with cerebral white matter lesion and brain volumes. Design, Setting, and Participants: A substudy of a multicenter randomized clinical trial of hypertensive adults 50 years or older without a history of diabetes or stroke at 27 sites in the United States. Randomization began on November 8, 2010. The overall trial was stopped early because of benefit for its primary outcome (a composite of cardiovascular events) and all-cause mortality on August 20, 2015. Brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed on a subset of participants at baseline (n = 670) and at 4 years of follow-up (n = 449); final follow-up date was July 1, 2016. Interventions: Participants were randomized to a systolic blood pressure (SBP) goal of either less than 120 mm Hg (intensive treatment, n = 355) or less than 140 mm Hg (standard treatment, n = 315). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was change in total white matter lesion volume from baseline. Change in total brain volume was a secondary outcome. Results: Among 670 recruited patients who had baseline MRI (mean age, 67.3 [SD, 8.2] years; 40.4% women), 449 (67.0%) completed the follow-up MRI at a median of 3.97 years after randomization, after a median intervention period of 3.40 years. In the intensive treatment group, based on a robust linear mixed model, mean white matter lesion volume increased from 4.57 to 5.49 cm3 (difference, 0.92 cm3 [95% CI, 0.69 to 1.14]) vs an increase from 4.40 to 5.85 cm3 (difference, 1.45 cm3 [95% CI, 1.21 to 1.70]) in the standard treatment group (between-group difference in change, -0.54 cm3 [95% CI, -0.87 to -0.20]). Mean total brain volume decreased from 1134.5 to 1104.0 cm3 (difference, -30.6 cm3 [95% CI, -32.3 to -28.8]) in the intensive treatment group vs a decrease from 1134.0 to 1107.1 cm3 (difference, -26.9 cm3 [95% CI, 24.8 to 28.8]) in the standard treatment group (between-group difference in change, -3.7 cm3 [95% CI, -6.3 to -1.1]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among hypertensive adults, targeting an SBP of less than 120 mm Hg, compared with less than 140 mm Hg, was significantly associated with a smaller increase in cerebral white matter lesion volume and a greater decrease in total brain volume, although the differences were small. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01206062.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2019.10551

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 35 references

Cited by

See all 423

Metadata

Authors
The SPRINT MIND Investigators for the SPRINT Research Group, Nasrallah, I. M., Pajewski, N. M., Auchus, A. P., Chelune, G., Cheung, A. K., Cleveland, M. L., Coker, L. H., Crowe, M. G., Cushman, W. C., Cutler, J. A., Davatzikos, C., Desiderio, L., Doshi, J., Erus, G., Fine, L. J., Gaussoin, S. A., Harris, D., Johnson, K. C., Kimmel, P. L., Kurella Tamura, M., Launer, L. J., Lerner, A. J., Lewis, C. E., Martindale-Adams, J., Moy, C. S., Nichols, L. O., Oparil, S., Ogrocki, P. K., Rahman, M., Rapp, S. R., Reboussin, D. M., Rocco, M. V., Sachs, B. C., Sink, K. M., Still, C. H., Supiano, M. A., Snyder, J. K., Wadley, V. G., Walker, J., Weiner, D. E., Whelton, P. K., Wilson, V. M., Woolard, N., Wright, J. T., Wright, C. B., Williamson, J. D., & Bryan, R. N.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2019-08-13
Volume
322
Issue
6
Pages
524
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2967318538
Cited by
423
References
35
FWCI
34.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Association of Intensive vs Standard Blood Pressure Control With Cerebral White Matter Lesions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.2019.10551
The paper
The SPRINT MIND Investigators for the SPRINT Research Group, Nasrallah, I. M., Pajewski, N. M., Auchus, A. P., Chelune, G., Cheung, A. K., Cleveland, M. L., Coker, L. H., Crowe, M. G., Cushman, W. C., Cutler, J. A., Davatzikos, C., Desiderio, L., Doshi, J., Erus, G., Fine, L. J., Gaussoin, S. A., Harris, D., Johnson, K. C., . . . Bryan, R. N. (2019). Association of Intensive vs Standard Blood Pressure Control With Cerebral White Matter Lesions. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.10551

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.