The author argues that flawed meta-analyses and inappropriate diagnostic criteria have led to exaggerated claims about hypertension treatment, paradoxically devaluing its true prophylactic worth.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Questions reliability of meta-analyses on antihypertensives; leaves open true prophylactic benefit pending stricter methods.
Progressive improvements in antihypertensive drug therapy over the past four decades have provided clear benefits in limiting cardiovascular complications. Unfortunately, and largely inexplicably, the inclusion in meta-analyses of defective trials plus the employment of inappropriate diagnostic criteria for adverse coronary events have led to spurious, exaggerated claims for the advantages of such treatment. The consequence has been a devaluation of the very real worth of prophylactic drug therapy for hypertension.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
J. Ian S. Robertson (2001) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: