MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4413325841 · doi:10.1016/j.cjca.2025.08.328

Evening Blood Pressure Medication Administration and Cardiovascular Events: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4413325841 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Ricky D. Turgeon, Blair J. MacDonald, Scott Garrison

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Cardiology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEveningMeta-analysisBlood pressureInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Controversy persists whether evening administration of antihypertensive medications reduces cardiovascular events. We aimed to synthesize the randomized evidence comparing the risk of cardiovascular events with evening versus morning administration of antihypertensive medications. Methods We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL from inception through May 13 2025. We included randomized controlled trials of adults with hypertension comparing evening administration of ≥1 antihypertensive medication to morning administration of all antihypertensive medications with ≥500 patient-years per group and median follow-up ≥12 months. Two reviewers extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and evaluated certainty of evidence. The primary outcome was the composite of major adverse cardiovascular events, as defined in each trial. Secondary outcomes included all-cause and cardiovascular deaths, myocardial infarctions, strokes, heart failure exacerbations, all-cause unplanned hospitalization/emergency department visits, fractures, glaucoma-related events, and worsening cognition. We obtained summary-level data from all trials, and additionally obtained patient-level outcome data for two trials (BedMed and BedMed-Frail). The primary meta-analysis pooled trial-level data using a random-effects frequentist approach. Results We included five randomized controlled trials with 46,606 patients (mean age 63.2 years; 25,515 men [55%]). Median follow-up was 5.2 years. Evening administration of antihypertensive medications, compared with morning administration, did not reduce the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events in all trials (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-1.16; I2=94%), or when restricted to three trials at low risk of bias (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-1.03; I2=0%). Conclusions Among adults with hypertension, evening compared with morning administration of antihypertensive medications did not reduce cardiovascular events.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.026
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Cardiology→Same topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies→French-language works237,207→