MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2790088092 · doi:10.7326/m17-3293

Hypertension Limbo: Balancing Benefits, Harms, and Patient Preferences Before We Lower the Bar on Blood Pressure

2018· letter· en· W2790088092 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Timothy J Wilt, Devan Kansagara, Amir Qaseem

Notice bibliographique

RevueAnnals of Internal Medicine · 2018
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineBlood pressureIntensive care medicineInternal medicineCardiology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Editorials6 March 2018Hypertension Limbo: Balancing Benefits, Harms, and Patient Preferences Before We Lower the Bar on Blood PressureTimothy J. Wilt, MD, MPH, Devan Kansagara, MD, MCR, and Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, for the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of PhysiciansTimothy J. Wilt, MD, MPHMinneapolis VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, Minnesota (T.J.W.), Devan Kansagara, MD, MCRPortland Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Portland, Oregon (D.K.), and Amir Qaseem, MD, PhDAmerican College of Physicians, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (A.Q.), for the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of PhysiciansAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/M17-3293 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail The recent hypertension guideline from the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), and partner organizations—a synopsis of which is in this issue (1)—raises important questions about hypertension diagnosis and treatment. The guideline differs substantially from those of other organizations, including the American College of Physicians (ACP) and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) (2). Here, we examine these differences, focusing on pharmacologic treatment of adults older than 60 years. Strengths of the ACC/AHA guideline include its emphasis on the importance of blood pressure (BP) measurement technique and lifestyle changes. However, the guideline falls short in ...References1. Carey RM, Whelton PK; 2017 ACC/AHA Hypertension Guideline Writing Committee. Prevention, detection, evaluation, and management of high blood pressure in adults: synopsis of the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association hypertension guideline. Ann Intern Med. 2018;168:351-8. doi:10.7326/M17-3203 LinkGoogle Scholar2. Qaseem A, Wilt TJ, Rich R, Humphrey LL, Frost J, Forciea MA; Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians and the Commission on Health of the Public and Science of the American Academy of Family Physicians. Pharmacologic treatment of hypertension in adults aged 60 years or older to higher versus lower blood pressure targets: a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians and the American Academy of Family Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2017;166:430-7. [PMID: 28135725]. doi:10.7326/M16-1785 LinkGoogle Scholar3. Doust J, Vandvik PO, Qaseem A, Mustafa RA, Horvath AR, Frances A, et al; Guidelines International Network (G-I-N) Preventing Overdiagnosis Working Group. Guidance for modifying the definition of diseases: a checklist. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177:1020-5. [PMID: 28505266] doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.1302 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4. Welch HG, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S. Overdiagnosed: Making People Sick in the Pursuit of Health. Boston: Beacon Pr; 2011:1-31. Google Scholar5. Haynes RB, Sackett DL, Taylor DW, Gibson ES, Johnson AL. Increased absenteeism from work after detection and labeling of hypertensive patients. N Engl J Med. 1978;299:741-4. [PMID: 692548] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar6. Wright JT, Williamson JD, Whelton PK, Snyder JK, Sink KM, Rocco MV, et al; SPRINT Research Group. A randomized trial of intensive versus standard blood-pressure control. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:2103-16. [PMID: 26551272] doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1511939 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar7. Wei Y, Jin Z, Shen G, Zhao X, Yang W, Zhong Y, et al. Effects of intensive antihypertensive treatment on Chinese hypertensive patients older than 70 years. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2013;15:420-7. [PMID: 23730991] doi:10.1111/jch.12094 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar8. Lonn EM, Bosch J, López-Jaramillo P, Zhu J, Liu L, Pais P, et al; HOPE-3 Investigators. Blood-pressure lowering in intermediate-risk persons without cardiovascular disease. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:2009-20. [PMID: 27041480] doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1600175 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar9. Hansson L, Zanchetti A, Carruthers SG, Dahlöf B, Elmfeldt D, Julius S, et al. Effects of intensive blood-pressure lowering and low-dose aspirin in patients with hypertension: principal results of the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) randomised trial. HOT Study Group. Lancet. 1998;351:1755-62. [PMID: 9635947] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar10. Gandhi TK, Weingart SN, Borus J, Seger AC, Peterson J, Burdick E, et al. Adverse drug events in ambulatory care. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:1556-64. [PMID: 12700376] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, Minnesota (T.J.W.)Portland Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Portland, Oregon (D.K.)American College of Physicians, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (A.Q.)Disclosures: Authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest. Forms can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M17-3293.Corresponding Author: Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, American College of Physicians, 190 N. Independence Mall West, Philadelphia, PA 19106; e-mail, [email protected]org.Current Author Addresses: Dr. Wilt: Minneapolis VA Health Care System, 1 Veterans Drive (111-0), Minneapolis, MN 55417.Dr. Kansagara: Portland Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Mailcode RD71, 3710 SW US Veterans Hospital Road, Portland, OR 97239.Dr. Qaseem: American College of Physicians, 190 N. Independence Mall West, Philadelphia, PA 19106.This article was published at Annals.org on 23 January 2018. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsSee AlsoThe 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Hypertension Guideline: A Resource for Practicing Clinicians Robert M. Carey and Paul K. Whelton Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults: Synopsis of the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Hypertension Guideline Robert M. Carey , Paul K. Whelton , and Annals On Call - Hypertension Limbo Robert M. Centor and Devan Kansagara Metrics Cited byRecomendaciones preventivas cardiovasculares. Actualización PAPPS 2022Benefits and Harms of Hypertension and High-Normal Labels: A Randomized ExperimentBlood pressure control and complex health conditions in older adults: impact of recent hypertension management guidelinesEffectively Prescribing Oral Magnesium Therapy for Hypertension: A Categorized Systematic Review of 49 Clinical TrialsDevelopment of an item pool for a questionnaire on the psychosocial consequences of hypertension labellingStart und Ziele der BlutdrucktherapieAHA/ACC-defined stage 1 hypertensive adults do not display cutaneous microvascular endothelial dysfunctionPatients with elevated blood pressure or stage 1 hypertension have structural heart diseaseIdentifying patterns and predictors of lifestyle modification in electronic health record documentation using statistical and machine learning methodsPersonnalisation du rapport bénéfice/risque du traitement de l'hypertension artérielleHypertension Management in Nursing Homes: Review of Evidence and Considerations for CareCost-Effectiveness of Antihypertensive Therapy in Patients Older Than 80 Years: Cohort Study and Markov ModelPotential of Stratified Medicine for High Blood Pressure ManagementConsistency of Recommendations for Evaluation and Management of HypertensionReforming disease definitions: a new primary care led, people-centred approachDoes the benefit from treating to lower blood pressure targets vary with age? A systematic review and meta-analysisClinical outcomes and economic impact of the 2017 ACC/AHA guidelines on hypertension in ChinaThe new US and European guidelines in hypertension: A multi-dimensional analysisHypertensionJames Brian Byrd, MD, MS and Robert D. Brook, MDTarget blood pressure level for the treatment of elderly hypertensive patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trialsImplications of the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Hypertension Guideline in a Modern Primary Prevention Multi-Ethnic Prospective Cohort (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis)Prevalence of Hypertension, Treatment, and Blood Pressure Targets in Canada Associated With the 2017 American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association Blood Pressure GuidelinesOnline decision aids for primary cardiovascular disease prevention: systematic search, evaluation of quality and suitability for low health literacy patientsMedia Coverage of the Benefits and Harms of the 2017 Expanded Definition of High Blood PressureCardiovascular Disease and Mortality in Adults Aged ≥60 Years According to Recommendations by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and American College of Physicians/American Academy of Family PhysiciansPotential Cardiovascular Disease Events Prevented with Adoption of the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Blood Pressure GuidelineBenefits and Harms of Antihypertensive Treatment in Low-Risk Patients With Mild HypertensionSearching for an Optimal Systolic Blood Pressure Target: A Balance of Benefits and RisksFirst-Year Anniversary of the 2017 Hypertension GuidelineHipertensão arterial sistêmica: atualização no diagnóstico e tratamentoThe new hypertension guideline: logical but unwiseGeneralizing Intensive Blood Pressure Treatment to Adults With Diabetes MellitusThe Blood Pressure LandscapeUsefulness of a Simple Algorithm to Identify Hypertensive Patients Who Benefit from Intensive Blood Pressure LoweringClinical Precision in the Management of HypertensionHypertension. What do new guides bring up to date? 6 March 2018Volume 168, Issue 5Page: 369-370KeywordsBlood pressureCardiovascular disease riskCardiovascular diseasesDrug therapyElderlyFallsHypertensionMortalityRenal diseasesTreatment guidelines ePublished: 23 January 2018 Issue Published: 6 March 2018 PDF downloadLoading ...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,010
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,062
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,027
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,089

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0100,062
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,002
Bibliométrie0,0020,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,003
Communication savante0,0070,005
Science ouverte0,0020,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0110,016
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0270,015

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,061
Tête enseignante GPT0,287
Écart entre enseignants0,226 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations45
Publié2018
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAnnals of Internal MedicineMême sujetBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesTravaux en français237 207