Cited by 30Blood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsClinical practice guidelines implementation

Removing the hype from hypertension

Shun-Shin, M. J., Howard, J. P., Francis, D. P.·2014·BMJ

Abstract

Symplicity HTN-3 illustrates the importance of randomisation and blinding for exciting new treatments

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.g1937

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shun-Shin, M. J., Howard, J. P., & Francis, D. P.
Affiliations
Imperial College London (GB)
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2014-03-06
Volume
348
Issue
mar06 2
Pages
g1937-g1937
ISSN
1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1987472439
Cited by
30
References
8
Citations by year
2021: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (ACF-2011-21-003)
  • British Heart Foundation (FS/14/27/30752, FS/10/38/28268)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
hypertension, SYMPLICITY HTN-3, renal denervation, randomized controlled trials, blinding, treatment efficacy
MeSH terms
Humans, Hypertension, Kidney, Sympathectomy, Bias, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome

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