The DOI matches its Crossref record; its reference list is not available.
Effects of smoking on blood pressure and proteinuria in patients with diabetic nephropathy
Abstract
Objectives To investigate the effects of smoking on blood pressure and proteinuria in hypertensive diabetic patients with nephropathy. Design Controlled, randomized, cross-over study. Setting Tertiary care centre, University Hospital of Düsseldorf, Germany. Subjects A total of 25 subjects were recruited, each of whom smoked at least 20 cigarettes a day: 10 normotensive healthy volunteers and 15 hypertensive type 1 (insulin-dependent) diabetic outpatients with diabetic retinopathy and persistent micro- or macroalbuminuria; 10 diabetic patients had normal autonomic function test, whilst five patients showed signs of autonomic neuropathy. Interventions Controlled smoking or nonsmoking over a period of 8 h on separate days. Main outcome measures Blood pressure was measured every 10 min with an automatic device and urine samples were collected every 3 h. Results Systolic blood pressure increased during smoking in controls (mean) (11.5 mmHg, P = 0.0001) and in diabetic patients without autonomic neuropathy (7.9 mmHg; P = 0.018), but not in patients with autonomic neuropathy (-2.4 mmHg; P = 0.792). Diastolic blood pressure increased during smoking in controls (6.2 mmHg; P = 0.019) but not in diabetic patients (2.5 mmHg; P = 0.204. 0.2 mmHg; P = 0.956). During smoking, median proteinuria and albuminuria increased in diabetic patients without autonomic neuropathy (8.1 mg mmol-1 creatinine, P = 0.002; and 2.6 mg mmol creatinine, P = 0.084). No significant changes in albuminuria or prot…
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
Critical clinical outcomes, such as death, kidney failure, and cardiovascular events, were not reported, and therefore the overall quality of the evidence has been rated as very low.
“Critical clinical outcomes, such as death, kidney failure, and cardiovascular events were not reported, and therefore the overall quality of the evidence has been rated as very low (Supplementary Table S10 183 )”
From KDIGO 2022 Clinical Practice Guideline for Diabetes Management in Chronic Kidney Disease (2022) · cites this paper as [183]
Citations
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
Cited by 34
Metadata
- Authors
- SAWICKI, P. T., MÜHLHAUSER, I., BENDER, R., PETHKE, W., HEINEMANN, L., & BERGER, M.
- Affiliations
- Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf (DE)
- Corresponding author
- SAWICKI, P. T.
- Venue
- Journal of Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1996-04
- Volume
- 239
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 345-352
- ISSN
- 0954-6820 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2796
- OpenAlex
- W2001245987
- Cited by
- 34
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2022: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 2.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Nephrology › Chronic Kidney Disease and Diabetes
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
- Keywords
- smoking, blood pressure, proteinuria, albuminuria, diabetic nephropathy, type 1 diabetes, hypertension, autonomic neuropathy, microalbuminuria, macroalbuminuria, diabetic retinopathy
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Autonomic Nervous System Diseases, Blood Pressure, Diabetic Nephropathies, Female, Humans, Hypertension, Male, Monitoring, Physiologic, Proteinuria, Smoking, Cross-Over Studies
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