Cited by 57Blood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesCardiovascular Health and Disease PreventionHeart rate and cardiovascular health

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Nebivolol vs Amlodipine as First-line Treatment of Essential Arterial Hypertension in the Elderly

Open access
Mazza, A., Gil-Extremera, B., Maldonato, A., Toutouzas, T., Pessina, A. C.·2002·Blood Pressure

Abstract

The antihypertensive efficacy of nebivolol and amlodipine and their tolerability were compared in a multicentre, randomized, active-controlled, double-blind parallel-group trial in elderly patients with mild to moderate essential arterial hypertension. One hundred and eighty-four subjects aged > or = 65 years were screened. After a run-in phase of 4 weeks, only 168 of these were randomized with either nebivolol 2.5-5 mg daily (n = 81) or amlodipine 5-10 mg daily (n = 87) over a period of 12 weeks. The response rate to treatment and the changes of sitting diastolic blood pressure (BP) at week 12 were similar between the two groups. A lower sitting systolic BP (SBP) was detected with amlodipine at week 4 (p < 0.05) and at week 8 (p < 0.05). Standing BP showed no changes between the two groups; only SBP was lower with amlodipine at week 8 (p < 0.05). Heart rate was lower at all treatment visits with nebivolol (p < 0.001). The incidence of adverse events was no different between the two groups; however the incidence of headache and ankle oedema was significantly higher with amlodipine (p < 0.05). In elderly subjects with essential hypertension, the antihypertensive efficacy of nebivolol and amlodipine was similar. Both drugs were well tolerated, although amlodipine was accompanied by higher incidence of drug-related adverse events.

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 · 10.1080/080370502760050421

Cites

1 of 1 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Metadata

Authors
Mazza, A., Gil-Extremera, B., Maldonato, A., Toutouzas, T., & Pessina, A. C.
Affiliations
University of Padua (IT)
Venue
Blood Pressure
Published
2002-01
Volume
11
Issue
3
Pages
182-188
ISSN
  • 0803-7051 (ISSN-L)
  • 1651-1999
OpenAlex
W2110121427
Cited by
57
References
1
Citations by year
2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Blood Pressure (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart rate and cardiovascular health
Keywords
nebivolol, amlodipine, essential hypertension, elderly patients, first-line antihypertensive therapy, blood pressure reduction, drug tolerability, adverse events, headache, ankle edema, heart rate, calcium channel blockers, beta-blockers
MeSH terms
Nebivolol, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Antihypertensive Agents, Benzopyrans, Blood Pressure, Double-Blind Method, Edema, Ethanolamines, Headache, Heart Rate, Humans, Hypertension, Amlodipine

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