Cited by 221Blood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesClinical practice guidelines implementationSodium Intake and Health

Systematic Review for the 2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults

Open access
Reboussin, David M., Allen, Norrina B., Griswold, Michael E., Guallar, Eliseo, Hong, Yuling, Lackland, Daniel T., Miller, Edgar (Pete) R., Polonsky, Tamar +2 more·2018·Journal of the American College of Cardiology

Abstract

Objective To review the literature systematically and perform meta-analyses to address these questions: 1) Is there evidence that self-measured blood pressure (BP) without other augmentation is superior to office-based measurement of BP for achieving better BP control or for preventing adverse clinical outcomes that are related to elevated BP? 2) What is the optimal target for BP lowering during antihypertensive therapy in adults? 3) In adults with hypertension, how do various antihypertensive drug classes differ in their benefits and harms compared with each other as first-line therapy? Methods Electronic literature searches were performed by Doctor Evidence, a global medical evidence software and services company, across PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to 2015 using key words and relevant subject headings for randomized controlled trials that met eligibility criteria defined for each question. We performed analyses using traditional frequentist statistical and Bayesian approaches, including random-effects Bayesian network meta-analyses. Results Our results suggest that: 1) There is a modest but significant improvement in systolic BP in randomized controlled trials of self-measured BP versus usual care at 6 but not 12 months, and for selected patients and their providers self-measured BP may be a helpful adjunct to routine office care. 2) systolic BP lowering to a target of <130 mm Hg may reduce the risk of several important outcomes including risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, and major cardiovascular events. No class of medications (i.e., angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor blockers, calcium channel blockers, or beta blockers) was significantly better than thiazides and thiazide-like diuretics as a first-line therapy for any outcome.

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 · 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.11.004

Cites

99 of 99 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 100 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [41]National Clinical Guideline Centre (UK). Hypertension: The Clinical Management of Primary Hypertension in Adults: Update of Clinical Guidelines 18 and 34. London, UK: Royal College of Physicians (UK), 2011. 22855971

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Reboussin, D. M., Allen, N. B., Griswold, M. E., Guallar, E., Hong, Y., Lackland, D. T., Miller, E. (. R., Polonsky, T., Thompson-Paul, A. M., & Vupputuri, S.
Affiliations
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US)
Venue
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-05
Volume
71
Issue
19
Pages
2176-2198
ISSN
0735-1097 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3149811656
Cited by
221
References
100
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 42 · 2019: 53 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 4
FWCI
4.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
erratum (2018-05-15)
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American College of Cardiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (CC999999)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Sodium Intake and Health
Keywords
hypertension, self-measured blood pressure, office blood pressure measurement, antihypertensive therapy, blood pressure targets, first-line antihypertensive drugs, thiazide-like diuretics, ACE inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, calcium channel blockers, beta-blockers, cardiovascular outcomes, blood pressure control
MeSH terms
Adult, American Heart Association, Antihypertensive Agents, Cardiology, Humans, Hypertension, United States, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Disease Management, Advisory Committees, Research Report

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