The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Rarefaction of Skin Capillaries in Borderline Essential Hypertension Suggests an Early Structural Abnormality
Abstract
Abstract —We recently showed that rarefaction of skin capillaries in the dorsum of the fingers of patients with essential hypertension is due to the structural (anatomic) absence of capillaries rather than functional nonperfusion. It is not known whether this rarefaction is primary (ie, antedates the onset of hypertension) or secondary (ie, as a consequence of sustained and prolonged elevation of blood pressure [BP]). The aim of the present investigation was to study skin capillary density in a group of patients with mild borderline hypertension to assess whether rarefaction antedates the onset of sustained elevation of BP. The study group included 18 patients with mild borderline hypertension (mean supine BP, 136/83 mm Hg), 32 normotensive controls (mean BP, 126/77 mm Hg), and 45 patients with established essential hypertension (mean BP, 156/98 mm Hg). The skin of the dorsum of the fingers was examined by intravital capillary videomicroscopy before and after venous congestion at 60 mm Hg for 2 minutes. Patients with borderline essential hypertension had the lowest resting capillary density when compared with normotensive controls and patients with established hypertension. Maximal capillary density with venous congestion in the borderline group remained the lowest. The study confirmed that patients with borderline essential hypertension have skin capillary densities that are equally low as or even lower than patients with established hypertension. Both groups had significantly lower capillary densities than normal controls. One explanation for the results is that capillary rarefaction may be due to an early structural abnormality in essential hypertension.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
(1997) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.1997.00440420033005 · Cited by 3,777
Cited by
(2013) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/eht151 · Cited by 13,655
Mancia, G., Fagard, R., Narkiewicz, K., Redón, J., Zanchetti, A., Böhm, M., Christiaens, T., Cifkova, R., De Backer, G., Dominiczak, A., et al. (2013) · Journal of Hypertension · doi:10.1097/01.hjh.0000431740.32696.cc · Cited by 5,655
Authors/Task Force Members:, Mancia, G., De Backer, G., Dominiczak, A., Cifkova, R., Fagard, R., Germano, G., Grassi, G., Heagerty, A. M., Kjeldsen, S. E., et al. (2006) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehm236 · Cited by 2,384
Daskalopoulou, S. S., Rabi, D. M., Zarnke, K. B., Dasgupta, K., Nerenberg, K., Cloutier, L., Gelfer, M., Lamarre-Cliche, M., Milot, A., Bolli, P., et al. (2015) · Canadian Journal of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.cjca.2015.02.016 · Cited by 684
Mancia, G., Fagard, R., Narkiewicz, K., Redon, J., Zanchetti, A., Böhm, M., Christiaens, T., Cifkova, R., De Backer, G., Dominiczak, A., et al. (2013) · Blood Pressure · doi:10.3109/08037051.2013.812549 · Cited by 426
Metadata
- Authors
- Antonios, T. F. T., Singer, D. R. J., Markandu, N. D., Mortimer, P. S., & MacGregor, G. A.
- Venue
- Hypertension
- Published
- 1999-10
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 655-658
- ISSN
- 0194-911X (ISSN-L)
- 1524-4563
- OpenAlex
- W2169090892
- Cited by
- 246
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 4.30
- 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: Rarefaction of Skin Capillaries in Borderline Essential Hypertension Suggests an Early Structural Abnormality. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.hyp.34.4.655
- The paper
- Antonios, T. F. T., Singer, D. R. J., Markandu, N. D., Mortimer, P. S., & MacGregor, G. A. (1999). Rarefaction of Skin Capillaries in Borderline Essential Hypertension Suggests an Early Structural Abnormality. Hypertension. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.hyp.34.4.655
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.