Effect of diuretics on plasma renin activity in primary hypertension: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Plasma renin activity (PRA) is regarded as a marker of sodium and fluid homeostasis in patients with primary hypertension. Whether effects of diuretics on PRA differ according to class of diuretic, whether diuretics lead to a sustained increase in PRA, and whether changes in PRA relate to those in blood pressure (BP) is unknown. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of trials investigating the antihypertensive effects of diuretic therapy in which PRA and/or other biomarkers of fluid homeostasis were measured before and after treatment. METHODS: Three databases were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Titles were firstly screened by title and abstract for relevancy before full-text articles were assessed for eligibility according to a predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. RESULTS: A total of 1684 articles were retrieved of which 61 met the prespecified inclusion/exclusion criteria. PRA was measured in 30/61 studies. Diuretics led to a sustained increase in PRA which was similar for different classes of diuretic (standardised mean difference [95% confidence interval] 0.481 [0.362, 0.601], 0.729 [0.181, 1.28], 0.541 [0.253, 0.830] and 0.548 [0.159, 0.937] for thiazide, loop, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists/potassium-sparing and combination diuretics respectively, Q = 0.897, P = .826), and did not relate to the average decrease in blood pressure. CONCLUSION: In antihypertensive drug trials, diuretics lead to a sustained increase in average PRA, which is similar across different classes of diuretic and unrelated to the average reduction in blood pressure.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".