MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Association Between More Intensive vs Less Intensive Blood Pressure Lowering and Risk of Mortality in Chronic Kidney Disease Stages 3 to 5

2017· review· en· W2753102265 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Internal Medicine · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute on AgingNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicineKidney diseaseInternal medicinePlaceboMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialIntensive careBlood pressureCochrane LibraryClinical trialRenal functionMEDLINEIntensive care medicinePathologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Trials in patients with hypertension have demonstrated that intensive blood pressure (BP) lowering reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality but may increase the risk of chronic kidney disease (CKD) incidence and progression. Whether intensive BP lowering is associated with a mortality benefit in patients with prevalent CKD remains unknown. Objectives: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to investigate if more intensive compared with less intensive BP control is associated with reduced mortality risk in persons with CKD stages 3 to 5. Data Sources: Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed, Science Citation Index, Google Scholar, and clinicaltrials.gov electronic databases. Study Selection: All RCTs were included that compared 2 defined BP targets (either active BP treatment vs placebo or no treatment, or intensive vs less intensive BP control) and enrolled adults (≥18 years) with CKD stages 3 to 5 (estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2) exclusively or that included a CKD subgroup between January 1, 1950, and June 1, 2016. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two of us independently evaluated study quality and extracted characteristics and mortality events among persons with CKD within the intervention phase for each trial. When outcomes within the CKD group had not previously been published, trial investigators were contacted to request data within the CKD subset of their original trials. Main Outcome and Measure: All-cause mortality during the active treatment phase of each trial. Results: This study identified 30 RCTs that potentially met the inclusion criteria. The CKD subset mortality data were extracted in 18 trials, among which there were 1293 deaths in 15 924 participants with CKD. The mean (SD) baseline systolic BP (SBP) was 148 (16) mm Hg in both the more intensive and less intensive arms. The mean SBP dropped by 16 mm Hg to 132 mm Hg in the more intensive arm and by 8 mm Hg to 140 mm Hg in the less intensive arm. More intensive vs less intensive BP control resulted in 14.0% lower risk of all-cause mortality (odds ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76-0.97; P = .01), a finding that was without significant heterogeneity and appeared consistent across multiple subgroups. Conclusions and Relevance: Randomization to more intensive BP control is associated with lower mortality risk among trial participants with hypertension and CKD. Further studies are required to define absolute BP targets for maximal benefit and minimal harm.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.585
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.301 · 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