Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 208

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

Unattended Blood Pressure Measurements in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial: Implications for Entry and Achieved Blood Pressure Values Compared With Other Trials

Open access
Kjeldsen, Sverre E., Lund-Johansen, Per, Nilsson, Peter M., Mancia, Giuseppe·2016·Hypertension

Abstract

The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) enrolled 9361 participants aged ≥50 years in ≈100 expert medical centers and clinical practices throughout the United States.1 SPRINT excluded patients with diabetes mellitus and stroke survivors since previous clinical trials included those populations.2,3 Between 2010 and 2013, the SPRINT investigators randomly allocated the study participants into a standard treatment group receiving an average of 2 different blood pressure (BP) medications to achieve a systolic BP (SBP) target <140 mm Hg and into an intensive treatment group receiving an average of 3 BP medications to achieve a SBP target <120 mm Hg. The Director of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute stopped SPRINT early because of a positive effect. The significant preliminary results of SPRINT were announced on September 11, 20154 and the study results were quickly and favorably commented on by the New York Times5 and the Washington Post.6 The target SBP <120 mm Hg had reduced rates of the composite primary outcome that included myocardial infarction (MI), other acute coronary syndromes, stroke, heart failure, or death from cardiovascular causes by 25% and the risk of death from all causes by 27%, when compared with the target SBP of <140 mm Hg. The primary results of the trial were presented at the Scientific Sessions of the American Heart Association in Orlando on November 9, 2015 and published on the same day.7 The SPRINT study was published with an accompanying statement from the Editor of New England Journal of Medicine 8 saying that "This clinical trial will change practice, and we are proud to publish it and to defend the importance of the expedited peer-review and publication process that it has undergone. The report is now in the public domain, and the investigators' data …

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/hypertensionaha.116.07257

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

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 208

Metadata

Authors
Kjeldsen, S. E., Lund-Johansen, P., Nilsson, P. M., & Mancia, G.
Venue
Hypertension
Published
2016-05
Volume
67
Issue
5
Pages
808-812
ISSN
  • 0194-911X (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4563
OpenAlex
W2321919670
Cited by
208
References
4
FWCI
37.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Unattended Blood Pressure Measurements in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial: Implications for Entry and Achieved Blood Pressure Values Compared With Other Trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/hypertensionaha.116.07257
The paper
Kjeldsen, S. E., Lund-Johansen, P., Nilsson, P. M., & Mancia, G. (2016). Unattended Blood Pressure Measurements in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial: Implications for Entry and Achieved Blood Pressure Values Compared With Other Trials. Hypertension. https://doi.org/10.1161/hypertensionaha.116.07257

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.