Efficacy and Safety of Low-Dose Bisoprolol/Hydrochlorothiazide Combination for the Treatment of Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the blood pressure (BP)-lowering effect and the safety profile of low-dose bisoprolol/hydrochlorothiazide combination treatment in patients with hypertension. Methods: Multiple electronic databases were systematically searched, and five clinical studies were included in the meta-analysis. Results: Treatment with bisoprolol/hydrochlorothiazide significantly reduced systolic BP (SBP) [mean difference (MD): −8.35 mmHg, 95% confidence interval (CI): −11.44, −5.25 mmHg versus control; MD: −9.88 mmHg, 95%CI: −12.62, −7.14 mmHg versus placebo] and diastolic BP (DBP) [MD: −7.62 mmHg, 95%CI: −11.20, −4.04 mmHg, versus control; MD: −8.79 mmHg, 95%CI: −11.92, −5.67 mmHg versus placebo]. Moreover, BP response rate and BP control rate after low-dose bisoprolol/hydrochlorothiazide combination treatment were significantly greater compared to control [odd ratio (OR) for response rate: 4.86, 95%CI: 2.52, 9.37; OR for control rate: 1.67, 95%CI: 1.11, 2.51]. Finally, treatment with low-dose bisoprolol/hydrochlorothiazide was associated with a reduced risk of any adverse event (AE) and peripheral edema compared to control. Conclusions: Overall, our results reaffirm the safety and efficiency of prescribing bisoprolol/hydrochlorothiazide combination treatment in stage I and II hypertension.
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 | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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".