Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 259

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Antiproteinuric effect of blood-pressure-lowering agents: a meta-analysis of comparative trials

Gansevoort, R. T., Sluiter, W. J., Hemmelder, M. H., de Zeeuw, D., de Jong, P. E.·1995·Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation

Abstract

Whether ACE inhibitors (ACEi) differ from other antihypertensives in their efficacy to lower proteinuria is controversial. We therefore performed a meta-analysis of articles on this subject. The secondary objective in our meta-analysis was to study whether there is any difference between diabetic and non-diabetic patients in antiproteinuric response to blood pressure reduction. To identify all articles we performed a computer search using the bibliographic databases. To minimize publication bias, only trials in which a direct comparison was made between an ACEi and another antihypertensive were included. Studies performed both in diabetic and in non-diabetic patients were eligible. Included were 41 studies, comprising 1124 patients, of which 558 had non-diabetic renal disease. The mean antiproteinuric effect of ACEi was significantly greater than that of their comparator drugs: −39.9% (95% confidence interval: −42.8 to −36.8%) versus −17.0% (−19.0 to −15.1%) respectively (difference 24% (19.5 to 28.6%)). The blood-pressure-lowering effect was equal: −12.0% (−12.8 to −11.2%) versus −11.4% (−11.7 to −11.1%) respectively (difference −0.8% (−1.8 to 0.2%)). Thus it may be concluded that ACEIs confer an antiproteinuric effect beyond that attributable to their blood-pressure-lowering effect. A wide interstudy variation in antiproteinuric response to non-ACEI antihypertensives was observed. Multiple variable regression analysis was performed to assess which factors may explain this heterogeneity. From the comparator drugs, the class was of no importance: calcium-channel antagonists (CCA), β-blockers, and a rest group of other drug types showed a similar response. Patient characteristics such as initial GFR and blood pressure partly explained the variation in response, but most of it appeared dependent on the blood pressure reduction achieved. Furthermore the type of CCA is of importance, with nifedipine having the least effect. A significantly greater antiproteinuric effect of ‘non-ACEI’ antihypertensives was found in diabetic patients compared to non-diabetics. However, this coincided with a greater blood pressure reduction in diabetics. Adjusted for differences in blood pressure control, diabetics showed even a slightly lesser antiproteinuric response to non-ACEI antihypertensive compared to non-diabetics.

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 · 10.1093/ndt/10.11.1963

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.

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

Cited by

See all 259

Metadata

Authors
Gansevoort, R. T., Sluiter, W. J., Hemmelder, M. H., de Zeeuw, D., & de Jong, P. E.
Venue
Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation
Published
1995-11-01
Volume
10
Issue
11
Pages
1963-1974
ISSN
  • 0931-0509 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2385
OpenAlex
W2149258163
Cited by
259
References
0
FWCI
2.19
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: Antiproteinuric effect of blood-pressure-lowering agents: a meta-analysis of comparative trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/ndt/10.11.1963
The paper
Gansevoort, R. T., Sluiter, W. J., Hemmelder, M. H., de Zeeuw, D., & de Jong, P. E. (1995). Antiproteinuric effect of blood-pressure-lowering agents: a meta-analysis of comparative trials. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation. https://doi.org/10.1093/ndt/10.11.1963

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.