The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Screening for Hypertension
Abstract
PURPOSE: To review the evidence on four questions about screening asymptomatic adults for arterial hypertension: Is hypertension a significant health problem? Is it detectable at an early, presymptomatic stage? Is treatment available and effective? Do the benefits of screening outweigh the costs and risks? DATA IDENTIFICATION AND SELECTION: We did a computerized search of the MEDLARS data base to identify community-based trials of drug therapy for mild hypertension; other relevant citations are included when appropriate. DATA SYNTHESIS: We approached the preliminary questions in our analysis by narrative review and argument. The estimates of therapeutic efficacy are based on previously published meta-analyses. The cost-effectiveness of screening was addressed by formal mathematical modeling of the effect of screening on various U.S. populations. RESULTS OF ANALYSIS: Hypertension is clearly a significant health problem. It can be detected early, and effective treatment is available. Screening asymptomatic adults for hypertension has benefits that compare favorably to the risks and costs involved. According to our estimates, screening is most cost-effective for older adults compared with younger adults and for men compared with women and is highly sensitive to the cost of therapy for mild hypertension. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend hypertension screening for all adults. We also discuss the frequency and setting of screening activities. When a low-cost therapy is used, the cost-effectiveness of screening for hypertension compares favorably with other cardiovascular interventions.
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
Meta-Analysis in Clinical Research
L'ABBÉ, K. A., DETSKY, A. S., & O'ROURKE, K. (1987) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-107-2-224 · Cited by 1,267
Finnegan, T. P., Spence, J. D., Wong, D. G., & Wells, G. A. (1985) · Journal of Hypertension · doi:10.1097/00004872-198506000-00006 · Cited by 56
Cited by
Interventions used to improve control of blood pressure in patients with hypertension
Glynn, L. G., Murphy, A. W., Smith, S. M., Schroeder, K., & Fahey, T. (2010) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd005182.pub4 · Cited by 668
The cost-effectiveness of screening for type 2 diabetes
The CDC Diabetes Cost-Effectiveness Study Group (1998) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.280.20.1757 · Cited by 175
Echocardiography in patients with suspected endocarditis: a cost-effectiveness analysis
Heidenreich, P. A., Masoudi, F. A., Maini, B., Chou, T. M., Foster, E., Schiller, N. B., & Owens, D. K. (1999) · The American Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0002-9343(99)00216-8 · Cited by 119
Metadata
- Authors
- Littenberg, B., Garber, A. M., & Sox, H. C.
- Venue
- Annals of Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American College of Physicians
- Published
- 1990-02-01
- Volume
- 112
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 192-202
- ISSN
- 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-3704
- OpenAlex
- W1998585195
- Cited by
- 174
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 6.61
- 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: Screening for Hypertension. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7326/0003-4819-112-3-192
- The paper
- Littenberg, B., Garber, A. M., & Sox, H. C. (1990). Screening for Hypertension. Annals of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-112-3-192
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.