MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Hydralazine for essential hypertension

2011· review· en· W1937226585 on OpenAlexaff
Michael R Kandler, Greg T Mah, Aaron M Tejani, Sarah Stabler, Douglas M Salzwedel

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaBurnaby HospitalSurrey Memorial HospitalFraser Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHydralazinePlaceboAdverse effectStroke (engine)Myocardial infarctionTolerabilityRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineClinical trialRelative riskHeart failureIntensive care medicineBlood pressureCardiologyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is associated with an increased risk of stroke, myocardial infarction and congestive heart failure. Hydralazine is a direct-acting vasodilator which has been used for the treatment of hypertension since the 1950's. Although it has largely been replaced by newer antihypertensive drugs with more acceptable tolerability profiles, hydralazine is still widely used in developing countries due to its lower cost. A review of its relative effectiveness compared to placebo on surrogate and clinical outcomes is justified. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the effect of hydralazine compared to placebo in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on all cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, serious adverse events, myocardial infarctions, strokes, withdrawals due to adverse effects and blood pressure in patients with primary hypertension. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2011, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1948-August 2011), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970-June 2009) and EMBASE (1980-August 2011). Bibliographic citations from retrieved studies were also reviewed. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected RCTs studying the effect of oral hydralazine compared to oral placebo in patients with primary hypertension. We excluded studies of patients with secondary hypertension or gestational hypertension. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed trial quality using the risk of bias tool. Data synthesis and analysis was performed using RevMan 5. MAIN RESULTS: The search strategy did not yield any randomized controlled trials comparing hydralazine to placebo for inclusion in this review. There is insufficient evidence to conclude on the effects of hydralazine versus placebo on mortality, morbidity, withdrawals due to adverse effects, serious adverse events, or systolic and diastolic blood pressure. Some of the adverse effects related to hydralazine that have been reported in the literature include reflex tachycardia, hemolytic anemia, vasculitis, glomerulonephritis, and a lupus-like syndrome. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Hydralazine may reduce blood pressure when compared to placebo in patients with primary hypertension, however this data is based on before and after studies, not RCTs. Furthermore, its effect on clinical outcomes remains uncertain.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.219
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.174 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations57
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207