Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Highlights the debate between actuarial data supporting intervention for mild hypertension and clinical trial limitations suggesting a cautious approach.
T HE medical literature over the past half dozen or more years has been strewn with reports and commentaries on the treatment of mild hypertension. Those who are particularly influenced by the evidence from the insurance companies point to the well-documented increased mortality in the presence of even a little high blood pressure, cite the efficacy of lowering blood pressure by various nonpharmacological and pharmacological means, and urge public education and individual and mass intervention. Others, though not doubting the actuarial data, have not been reluctant to express different views; they have pointed to the limitations of and uncertainties in the findings from the various clinical trials to date and said, "Go slow."
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
O Paul (1986) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: