BLOOD PRESSURE TARGETS AND MORTALITY IN HYPERTENSIVE PATIENTS WITH CHRONIC RENAL DISEASE. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To compare the effects of intensive vs standard blood pressure (BP) targets on the mortality of hypertensive patients with chronic renal disease. Design and method: A bibliographic search of all relevant databases was carried out without restriction by language, year of publication or publication status. We considered randomized controlled clinical trials on patients older than 18 years, diagnosed with hypertension and chronic renal disease who were allocated to either “intensive’’ BP target (less than or equal to 130/80 mmHg) or “standard’’ BP target (less than or equal to 140–160/90–100 mmHg). Additionally, trials should include more than 50 participants per group followed during at least one year. Trials were not limited by any concomitant disease or baseline cardiovascular risk. We contacted trials’ authors to obtain Individual Patient Data and, if necessary, extracted information from chronic renal patients. COVIDENCE software was used for screening, the Cochrane Review Manager (RevMan web) for data synthesis and analysis, and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (ROB2) to assess the risk of bias for each trial. Results: A total of 2298 records were identified by the bibliographic search. We obtained the full text of 29 publications from the pre-selected studies. Of these, six studies met the inclusion criteria and we obtained Individual Patient Data for all of them (AASK, SPRINT, HOT, ACCORD BP, MDRD, SPS3). There was no statistically significant difference in total mortality between the intensive and standard blood pressure target groups (RR 0.92, 95%CI 0.75–1.13, p = 0.42, 6 studies, 7,348 participants). In absolute terms, there were 5 additional deaths per 1000 participants in the standard target group (95% CI: 6 fewer to 16 more deaths per 1000 participants). Overall deaths were 227/3352 (6.8%) in the intensive target group vs 285/3996 (7.9%) in the standard target group (Figure). The quality of evidence was moderate according to the GRADE assessment. Conclusions: Intensive blood pressure lowering targets in patients with arterial hypertension and chronic renal disease do not result in lower mortality compared to standard blood pressure lowering.
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 | 0.016 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.027 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".