The DOI matches its OpenAlex record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Treatment of Mild Hypertension Study. Final results. Treatment of Mild Hypertension Study Research Group
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare six antihypertensive interventions for the treatment of mild hypertension. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. SETTING: Four hypertension screening and treatment centers in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Hypertensive men and women, aged 45 to 69 years, with diastolic blood pressure less than 100 mm Hg. INTERVENTION: Sustained nutritional-hygienic advice to all participants to reduce weight, dietary sodium intake, and alcohol intake, and increase physical activity. Participants were randomly allocated to take (1) placebo (n = 234); (2) chlorthalidone (n = 136); (3) acebutolol (n = 132); (4) doxazosin mesylate (n = 134); (5) amlodipine maleate (n = 131); or (6) enalapril maleate (n = 135). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Blood pressure, quality of life, side effects, blood lipid levels and analysis of other serum components, echocardiographic and electrocardiographic changes, and incidence of cardiovascular events over an average of 4.4 years of follow-up. RESULTS: Blood pressure reductions were sizable in all six groups, and were significantly greater for participants assigned to drug treatment than placebo (-15.9 vs -9.1 mm Hg for systolic blood pressure and -12.3 vs -8.6 mm Hg for diastolic blood pressure; P < .0001). After 4 years, 59% of participants assigned to placebo and 72% of participants given drug treatment continued on their initial medication as monotherapy. A smaller percentage of participants assigned to the drug-treatment groups died or experienced a major nonfatal cardiovascular event than those assigned to the placebo group (5.1% vs 7.3%; P = .21). After including other clinical events, the percentage of participants affected was 11.1% for those in the drug-treatment groups and 16.2% for those in the placebo group (P = .03). Incidence rates of most resting electrocardiographic abnormalities were lower and quality of life was improved more for those assigned to drug-treatment groups rather than the placebo group. Differences among the five drug treatments did not consistently favor one group in terms of regression of left ventricular mass, blood lipid levels, and other outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: As an initial regimen, drug treatment in combination with nutritional-hygienic intervention was more effective in preventing cardiovascular and other clinical events than was nutritional-hygienic treatment alone. Drug-treatment group differences were minimal. Pending results from large-scale clinical trials to evaluate drug treatments for their effect on cardiovascular clinical events, these findings support the recommendations of the new fifth Joint National Committee report regarding treatment choices for people with stage 1 ("mild") hypertension.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Random-Effects Models for Longitudinal Data
Laird, N. M., & Ware, J. H. (1982) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529876 · Cited by 8,923
Neaton, J. D. (1992) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.1992.00400130082009 · Cited by 784
Self-citation
Cited by
Whelton, P. K., Carey, R. M., Aronow, W. S., Casey, D. E., Collins, K. J., Dennison Himmelfarb, C., DePalma, S. M., Gidding, S., Jamerson, K. A., Jones, D. W., et al. (2018) · Hypertension · doi:10.1161/hyp.0000000000000065 · Cited by 7,391
Whelton, P. K., Carey, R. M., Aronow, W. S., Casey, D. E., Collins, K. J., Dennison Himmelfarb, C., DePalma, S. M., Gidding, S., Jamerson, K. A., Jones, D. W., et al. (2018) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2017.11.006 · Cited by 6,616
The ALLHAT Officers and Coordinators for the ALLHAT Collaborative Research Group (2002) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.288.23.2981 · Cited by 5,664
Arnett, D. K., Blumenthal, R. S., Albert, M. A., Buroker, A. B., Goldberger, Z. D., Hahn, E. J., Himmelfarb, C. D., Khera, A., Lloyd-Jones, D., McEvoy, J. W., et al. (2019) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/cir.0000000000000678 · Cited by 4,536
(2019) · doi:10.1161/cir.0000000000000677 · Cited by 4,501
Metadata
- Authors
- Neaton, J. D.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 1993-08-11
- Volume
- 270
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 713
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W4236421691
- Cited by
- 946
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 38.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Treatment of Mild Hypertension Study. Final results. Treatment of Mild Hypertension Study Research Group. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.270.6.713
- The paper
- Neaton, J. D. (1993). Treatment of Mild Hypertension Study. Final results. Treatment of Mild Hypertension Study Research Group. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.270.6.713
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.