Key result
This communication serves as a rebuttal to criticisms regarding the inclusion criteria and outcomes of the MAPEC and Hygia Chronotherapy Trials on bedtime hypertension chronotherapy.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This communication serves as a rebuttal to criticisms regarding the inclusion criteria and findings of the MAPEC and Hygia Chronotherapy Trials.
The purpose of this communication is to respond to the continuing invalid criticism by Lemmer and Middeke of the MAPEC and Hygia Chronotherapy Trial by emphasizing the: (i) already unambiguously reported ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM)-based definition of hypertension utilized as the inclusion criterion of both investigations and (ii) impact of bedtime hypertension chronotherapy on ABPM-assessed parameters and cardiovascular disease (CVD) outcome for participants further categorized by influential markers of CVD risk. In so doing, we call attention to apparent unethical misconduct of Lemmer and Middeke of multiple duplicated publications of the very same unfounded criticisms.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hermida et al. (2020) conducted a letter in Hypertension. Bedtime hypertension chronotherapy was evaluated on ABPM-assessed parameters and cardiovascular disease (CVD) outcome. This communication serves as a rebuttal to criticisms regarding the inclusion criteria and outcomes of the MAPEC and Hygia Chronotherapy Trials on bedtime hypertension chronotherapy.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: