32. Comparative Analysis of Intensive vs Standard Blood Pressure Targets on Mortality and Vascular Events in Hypertensive Patients with a History of Stroke: A Meta-Analysis Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This study investigates the impact of intensive versus standard blood pressure control on mortality and vascular incidents in hypertensive patients with a history of stroke. Objective: The aim is to compare these treatment approaches and understand their potential benefits and risks through a meta-analysis of existing studies. Method: A comprehensive search was conducted across multiple databases, resulting in the inclusion of 11 Randomized Controlled Trial studies and 2 prospective cohort studies. The risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2 tools and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Result: Intensive blood pressure control showed a slightly higher risk of death and other vascular events compared to standard blood pressure control. Intensive blood pressure control has higher risk of death (OR: 1.11, 95% CI: 1.06 – 1.17, I2: 68%). It has a slightly lower risk of Death or Disability (OR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.86 – 1.04, I2: 0%). It has a slightly higher risk of Hematoma Expansion (OR: 1.10, 95% CI: 1.01 – 1.19, I2: 72%). It has a slightly higher risk of recurrent stroke (OR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.98 - 1.10, I2: 64%). It has a slightly higher risk of Neurological Detrioration (OR: 1.13, 95% CI: 1.05 - 1.21, I2: 3%). It has a lower risk of mRS score (OR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.84 – 0.88, I2: 74%). It has a slightly lower risk of improvement mRS score (OR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.87 – 0.93, I2: 0%). Most of the studies were conducted in multicentre regions and had large sample sizes, which signifies the external validity of this meta-analysis. Conclusion: Intensive blood pressure targets may not be more beneficial than standard ones in reducing the risk of mortality and vascular events. Further studies are needed to validate these findings.
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 | 0.018 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.070 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".