Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 166

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Benefits and Harms of Intensive Blood Pressure Treatment in Adults Aged 60 Years or Older: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Weiss, Jessica, Freeman, Michele, Low, Allison, Fu, Rochelle, Kerfoot, Amy, Paynter, Robin, Motu'apuaka, Makalapua, Kondo, Karli, Kansagara, Devan·2017·Annals of Internal Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Recent guidelines recommend a systolic blood pressure (SBP) goal of less than 150 mm Hg for adults aged 60 years or older, but the balance of benefits and harms is unclear in light of newer evidence. PURPOSE: To systematically review the effects of more versus less intensive BP control in older adults. DATA SOURCES: Multiple databases through January 2015 and MEDLINE to September 2016. STUDY SELECTION: 21 randomized, controlled trials comparing BP targets or treatment intensity, and 3 observational studies that assessed harms. DATA EXTRACTION: Two investigators extracted data, assessed study quality, and graded the evidence using published criteria. DATA SYNTHESIS: Nine trials provided high-strength evidence that BP control to less than 150/90 mm Hg reduces mortality (relative risk [RR], 0.90 [95% CI, 0.83 to 0.98]), cardiac events (RR, 0.77 [CI, 0.68 to 0.89]), and stroke (RR, 0.74 [CI, 0.65 to 0.84]). Six trials yielded low- to moderate-strength evidence that lower targets (≤140/85 mm Hg) are associated with marginally significant decreases in cardiac events (RR, 0.82 [CI, 0.64 to 1.00]) and stroke (RR, 0.79 [CI, 0.59 to 0.99]) and nonsignificantly fewer deaths (RR, 0.86 [CI, 0.69 to 1.06]). Low- to moderate-strength evidence showed that lower BP targets do not increase falls or cognitive impairment. LIMITATION: Data relevant to frail elderly adults and the effect of multimorbidity are limited. CONCLUSION: Treatment to at least current guideline standards for BP (<150/90 mm Hg) substantially improves health outcomes in older adults. There is less consistent evidence, largely from 1 trial targeting SBP less than 120 mm Hg, that lower BP targets are beneficial for high-risk patients. Lower BP targets did not increase falls or cognitive decline but are associated with hypotension, syncope, and greater medication burden. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Office of Research and Development, Quality Enhancement Research Initiative. (PROSPERO 2015: CRD42015017677).

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 · 10.7326/m16-1754

Cites

13 of 13 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 13 references

Cited by

See all 166

Metadata

Authors
Weiss, J., Freeman, M., Low, A., Fu, R., Kerfoot, A., Paynter, R., Motu'apuaka, M., Kondo, K., & Kansagara, D.
Venue
Annals of Internal Medicine
Published
2017-03-21
Volume
166
Issue
6
Pages
419-429
ISSN
  • 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
  • 1539-3704
OpenAlex
W2582957325
Cited by
166
References
13
FWCI
18.12
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: Benefits and Harms of Intensive Blood Pressure Treatment in Adults Aged 60 Years or Older: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7326/m16-1754
The paper
Weiss, J., Freeman, M., Low, A., Fu, R., Kerfoot, A., Paynter, R., Motu'apuaka, M., Kondo, K., & Kansagara, D. (2017). Benefits and Harms of Intensive Blood Pressure Treatment in Adults Aged 60 Years or Older: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Annals of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.7326/m16-1754

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.