Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 252

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effects of a Perindopril-Based Blood Pressure–Lowering Regimen on the Risk of Recurrent Stroke According to Stroke Subtype and Medical History: The PROGRESS Trial

Open access
Chapman, N., Huxley, R., Anderson, C., Bousser, M.G., Chalmers, J., Colman, S., Davis, S., Donnan, G., MacMahon, S., Neal, B., Warlow, C., Woodward, M.·2004·Stroke

Abstract

Background and Purpose— The Perindopril Protection Against Recurrent Stroke Study (PROGRESS) showed that blood pressure lowering reduced stroke risk in patients with a history of cerebrovascular events. Here, we report the consistency of treatment effects across different stroke subtypes and among major clinical subgroups. Methods— PROGRESS was a randomized, double-blind trial among 6105 people with a prior history of cerebrovascular events. Participants were assigned to active treatment (perindopril for all participants and indapamide for those with neither an indication for nor a contraindication to a diuretic) or matching placebo(s). Results— During a mean of 3.9 years of follow-up, active treatment reduced the absolute rates of ischemic stroke from 10% to 8% (relative risk reduction [RRR], 24%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10 to 35) and the absolute rates of intracerebral hemorrhage from 2% to 1% (RRR, 50%; 95% CI, 26 to 67). The relative risk of any stroke during follow-up was reduced by 26% (95% CI, 12 to 38) among patients whose baseline cerebrovascular event was an ischemic stroke and by 49% (95% CI, 18 to 68) among those whose baseline event was an intracerebral hemorrhage. There was no evidence that treatment effects were modified by other drug therapies (antiplatelet or other antihypertensive agents), residual neurological signs, atrial fibrillation, or the time since the last cerebrovascular event. Conclusions— Beneficial effects of a perindopril-based treatment regimen were observed for all stroke types and all major clinical subgroups studied. These data suggest that effective blood pressure–lowering therapy should be routinely considered for all patients with a history of cerebrovascular 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 · 10.1161/01.str.0000106480.76217.6f

Cites

4 of 4 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

Cited by

See all 252

Metadata

Authors
Chapman, N., Huxley, R., Anderson, C., Bousser, M. G., Chalmers, J., Colman, S., Davis, S., Donnan, G., MacMahon, S., Neal, B., Warlow, C., & Woodward, M.
Venue
Stroke
Published
2004-01
Volume
35
Issue
1
Pages
116-121
ISSN
  • 0039-2499 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4628
OpenAlex
W2154353965
Cited by
252
References
4
FWCI
10.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Effects of a Perindopril-Based Blood Pressure–Lowering Regimen on the Risk of Recurrent Stroke According to Stroke Subtype and Medical History: The PROGRESS Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.str.0000106480.76217.6f
The paper
Chapman, N., Huxley, R., Anderson, C., Bousser, M. G., Chalmers, J., Colman, S., Davis, S., Donnan, G., MacMahon, S., Neal, B., Warlow, C., & Woodward, M. (2004). Effects of a Perindopril-Based Blood Pressure–Lowering Regimen on the Risk of Recurrent Stroke According to Stroke Subtype and Medical History: The PROGRESS Trial. Stroke. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.str.0000106480.76217.6f

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.