Effect of intensive versus standard blood pressure control on cardiovascular outcomes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Figure 1.. PRISMA flow diagram of the literature search and study selection process. This diagram illustrates the identification, screening, eligibility assessment, and final inclusion of studies in the meta-analysis. The numbers of records identified, excluded, and included at each stage are shown.

Figure 2.. Forest plot for the association between intensive versus standard blood pressure control and major cardiovascular events (MACEs). This random-effects meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials is presented as a forest plot. Each horizontal line represents the 95% confidence interval (CI) for an individual study, and the square represents its point estimate (relative risk, RR). The area of each square is proportional to the study’s weight in the meta-analysis. The dashed vertical line indicates the line of overall effect (pooled RR). The diamond at the bottom represents the overall pooled RR with its 95% CI. Heterogeneity among studies was quantified as I-square = 46.5%.

Figure 3.. Forest plot for the association between intensive versus standard blood pressure control and myocardial infarction (MI). This random-effects meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials is presented as a forest plot. Each horizontal line represents the 95% confidence interval (CI) for an individual study, and the square represents its point estimate (relative risk, RR). The area of each square is proportional to the study’s weight in the meta-analysis. The dashed vertical line indicates the line of overall effect (pooled RR). The diamond at the bottom represents the overall pooled RR with its 95% CI. Heterogeneity among studies was quantified as I-square = 0.0%.

Figure 4.. Forest plot for the association between intensive versus standard blood pressure control and stroke. This random-effects meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials is presented as a forest plot. Each horizontal line represents the 95% confidence interval (CI) for an individual study, and the square represents its point estimate (relative risk, RR). The area of each square is proportional to the study’s weight in the meta-analysis. The dashed vertical line indicates the line of overall effect (pooled RR). The diamond at the bottom represents the overall pooled RR with its 95% CI. Heterogeneity among studies was quantified as I-square = 34.1%.