Meta-analyses: First-rank evidence or second-hand information?

Alberto Zanchetti

doi:10.1038/nrcardio.2011.39

Meta-analyses: First-rank evidence or second-hand information?

Alberto Zanchetti

Fondazione Istituto Auxologico Italiano

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

On the basis of a meta-analysis of randomized studies assessing reductions in 24 h ambulatory blood pressure, investigators have concluded that hydrochlorothiazide is an inappropriate first-line drug for antihypertensive treatment. This conclusion has the potential to change current prescribing practice for patients with hypertension, but should meta-analyses be considered the ultimate level of evidence, particularly those based on a surrogate outcome?

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	249-251
Number of pages	3
Journal	Nature Reviews Cardiology
Volume	8
Issue number	5
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1038/nrcardio.2011.39
Publication status	Published - May 2011

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Access to Document

10.1038/nrcardio.2011.39

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Meta-analyses: First-rank evidence or second-hand information?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this

@article{ba23e994de6d40dd817cfb54a56d0caa,

title = "Meta-analyses: First-rank evidence or second-hand information?",

abstract = "On the basis of a meta-analysis of randomized studies assessing reductions in 24 h ambulatory blood pressure, investigators have concluded that hydrochlorothiazide is an inappropriate first-line drug for antihypertensive treatment. This conclusion has the potential to change current prescribing practice for patients with hypertension, but should meta-analyses be considered the ultimate level of evidence, particularly those based on a surrogate outcome?",

author = "Alberto Zanchetti",

year = "2011",

month = may,

doi = "10.1038/nrcardio.2011.39",

language = "English",

volume = "8",

pages = "249--251",

journal = "Nature Reviews Cardiology",

issn = "1759-5002",

publisher = "Nature Publishing Group",

number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Meta-analyses

T2 - First-rank evidence or second-hand information?

AU - Zanchetti, Alberto

PY - 2011/5

Y1 - 2011/5

N2 - On the basis of a meta-analysis of randomized studies assessing reductions in 24 h ambulatory blood pressure, investigators have concluded that hydrochlorothiazide is an inappropriate first-line drug for antihypertensive treatment. This conclusion has the potential to change current prescribing practice for patients with hypertension, but should meta-analyses be considered the ultimate level of evidence, particularly those based on a surrogate outcome?

AB - On the basis of a meta-analysis of randomized studies assessing reductions in 24 h ambulatory blood pressure, investigators have concluded that hydrochlorothiazide is an inappropriate first-line drug for antihypertensive treatment. This conclusion has the potential to change current prescribing practice for patients with hypertension, but should meta-analyses be considered the ultimate level of evidence, particularly those based on a surrogate outcome?

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79955482432&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79955482432&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1038/nrcardio.2011.39

DO - 10.1038/nrcardio.2011.39

M3 - Article

C2 - 21423247

AN - SCOPUS:79955482432

VL - 8

SP - 249

EP - 251

JO - Nature Reviews Cardiology

JF - Nature Reviews Cardiology

SN - 1759-5002

IS - 5

ER -