Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,409

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Study on Cognition and Prognosis in the Elderly (SCOPE): principal results of a randomized double-blind intervention trial

Lithell, Hans, Hansson, Lennart, Skoog, Ingmar, Elmfeldt, Dag, Hofman, Albert, Olofsson, Bertil, Trenkwalder, Peter, Zanchetti, Alberto·2003·Journal of Hypertension

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The prognostic benefits of blood pressure lowering treatment in elderly hypertensive patients were established more than a decade ago, but are less clear in those with mildly to moderately elevated blood pressure. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether candesartan-based antihypertensive treatment in elderly patients with mildly to moderately elevated blood pressure confers a reduction in cardiovascular events, cognitive decline and dementia. DESIGN: Prospective, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study conducted in 1997-2002. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The study was of 4964 patients aged 70-89 years, with systolic blood pressure 160-179 mmHg, and/or diastolic blood pressure 90-99 mmHg, and a Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) test score >or= 24. A total of 527 centres in 15 countries participated in the study. INTERVENTION: Patients were assigned randomly to receive the angiotensin receptor blocker candesartan or placebo, with open-label active antihypertensive therapy added as needed. As a consequence, active antihypertensive therapy was extensively used in the control group (84% of patients). Mean follow-up was 3.7 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was major cardiovascular events, a composite of cardiovascular death, non-fatal stroke and non-fatal myocardial infarction. Secondary outcome measures included cardiovascular death, non-fatal and fatal stroke and myocardial infarction, cognitive function measured by the MMSE and dementia. RESULTS: Blood pressure fell by 21.7/10.8 mmHg in the candesartan group and by 18.5/9.2 mmHg in the control group. A first major cardiovascular event occurred in 242 candesartan patients and in 268 control patients; risk reduction with candesartan was 10.9% [95% confidence interval (CI), -6.0 to 25.1, P = 0.19]. Candesartan-based treatment reduced non-fatal stroke by 27.8% (95% CI, 1.3 to 47.2, P = 0.04), and all stroke by 23.6% (95% CI, -0.7 to 42.1, P = 0.056). There were no significant differences in myocardial infarction and cardiovascular mortality. Mean MMSE score fell from 28.5 to 28.0 in the candesartan group and from 28.5 to 27.9 in the control group (P = 0.20). The proportions of patients who had a significant cognitive decline or developed dementia were not different in the two treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: In elderly hypertensive patients, a slightly more effective blood pressure reduction during candesartan-based therapy, compared with control therapy, was associated with a modest, statistically non-significant, reduction in major cardiovascular events and with a marked reduction in non-fatal stroke. Cognitive function was well maintained in both treatment groups in the presence of substantial blood pressure reductions. Both treatment regimens were generally well tolerated.

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 · 10.1097/00004872-200305000-00011

Cites

5 of 5 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

Show all 5 references

Research works printed but not linked: 21

  1. Caird, 1987, NZ Med J, 100, 13
  2. Dannenberg, 1988, Am J Public Health, 78, 676, 10.2105/AJPH.78.6.676 · DOI
  3. Skoog, 1996, Lancet, 347, 1141, 10.1016/S0140-6736(96)90608-X · DOI · Paper page
  4. Amery, 1985, Lancet, 1, 1349, 10.1016/S0140-6736(85)91783-0 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Coope, 1986, BMJ, 293, 1145, 10.1136/bmj.293.6555.1145 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Dahlof, 1991, Lancet, 338, 1281, 10.1016/0140-6736(91)92589-T · DOI · Paper page
  7. 1991, JAMA, 265, 3255, 10.1001/jama.265.24.3255 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 1992, BMJ, 304, 405, 10.1136/bmj.304.6824.405 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Staessen, 1997, Lancet, 350, 757, 10.1016/S0140-6736(97)05381-6 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Hansson, 1999, Blood Press, 8, 177, 10.1080/080370599438310 · DOI
  11. Dahlof, 2002, Lancet, 359, 995, 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08089-3 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Inada, 1997, Clin Exp Hypertens, 19, 1079, 10.3109/10641969709083206 · DOI
  13. Mann, 1998, Blood Press, 7, 176, 10.1080/080370598437394 · DOI
  14. Kjeldsen, 2001, Blood Press, 10, 83, 10.1080/08037050152112069 · DOI
  15. Kjeldsen, 2001, Blood Press, 10, 190, 10.1080/08037050152669684 · DOI
  16. Forette, 1998, Lancet, 352, 1347, 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)03086-4 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Jorm, 1998, Neurology, 51, 728, 10.1212/WNL.51.3.728 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Gao, 1998, Arch Gen Psychiatry, 55, 809, 10.1001/archpsyc.55.9.809 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Pollare, 1989, BMJ, 298, 1152, 10.1136/bmj.298.6681.1152 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Pollare, 1989, N Engl J Med, 321, 868, 10.1056/NEJM198909283211305 · DOI
  21. Moan, 1996, J Hypertens, 14, 1093, 10.1097/00004872-199609000-00008 · DOI

Cited by

See all 1,409

Metadata

Authors
Lithell, H., Hansson, L., Skoog, I., Elmfeldt, D., Hofman, A., Olofsson, B., Trenkwalder, P., & Zanchetti, A.
Venue
Journal of Hypertension
Published
2003-05
Volume
21
Issue
5
Pages
875-886
ISSN
0263-6352 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1979030376
Cited by
1,409
References
5
FWCI
78.36
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: The Study on Cognition and Prognosis in the Elderly (SCOPE): principal results of a randomized double-blind intervention trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00004872-200305000-00011
The paper
Lithell, H., Hansson, L., Skoog, I., Elmfeldt, D., Hofman, A., Olofsson, B., Trenkwalder, P., & Zanchetti, A. (2003). The Study on Cognition and Prognosis in the Elderly (SCOPE): principal results of a randomized double-blind intervention trial. Journal of Hypertension. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004872-200305000-00011

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.