↓ Skip to main content

2014 Evidence-Based Guideline for the Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, February 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#43 of 28,164)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
5079 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
3320 Mendeley
citeulike
7 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
2014 Evidence-Based Guideline for the Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults
Published in
JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, February 2014
DOI 10.1001/jama.2013.284427
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paul A. James, Suzanne Oparil, Barry L. Carter, William C. Cushman, Cheryl Dennison-Himmelfarb, Joel Handler, Daniel T. Lackland, Michael L. LeFevre, Thomas D. MacKenzie, Olugbenga Ogedegbe, Sidney C. Smith, Laura P. Svetkey, Sandra J. Taler, Raymond R. Townsend, Jackson T. Wright, Andrew S. Narva, Eduardo Ortiz

Abstract

Hypertension is the most common condition seen in primary care and leads to myocardial infarction, stroke, renal failure, and death if not detected early and treated appropriately. Patients want to be assured that blood pressure (BP) treatment will reduce their disease burden, while clinicians want guidance on hypertension management using the best scientific evidence. This report takes a rigorous, evidence-based approach to recommend treatment thresholds, goals, and medications in the management of hypertension in adults. Evidence was drawn from randomized controlled trials, which represent the gold standard for determining efficacy and effectiveness. Evidence quality and recommendations were graded based on their effect on important outcomes. There is strong evidence to support treating hypertensive persons aged 60 years or older to a BP goal of less than 150/90 mm Hg and hypertensive persons 30 through 59 years of age to a diastolic goal of less than 90 mm Hg; however, there is insufficient evidence in hypertensive persons younger than 60 years for a systolic goal, or in those younger than 30 years for a diastolic goal, so the panel recommends a BP of less than 140/90 mm Hg for those groups based on expert opinion. The same thresholds and goals are recommended for hypertensive adults with diabetes or nondiabetic chronic kidney disease (CKD) as for the general hypertensive population younger than 60 years. There is moderate evidence to support initiating drug treatment with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, angiotensin receptor blocker, calcium channel blocker, or thiazide-type diuretic in the nonblack hypertensive population, including those with diabetes. In the black hypertensive population, including those with diabetes, a calcium channel blocker or thiazide-type diuretic is recommended as initial therapy. There is moderate evidence to support initial or add-on antihypertensive therapy with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker in persons with CKD to improve kidney outcomes. Although this guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for the management of high BP and should meet the clinical needs of most patients, these recommendations are not a substitute for clinical judgment, and decisions about care must carefully consider and incorporate the clinical characteristics and circumstances of each individual patient.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 1,884 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 3,320 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 29 <1%
Spain 13 <1%
Brazil 12 <1%
Mexico 8 <1%
Indonesia 7 <1%
Colombia 7 <1%
Ecuador 6 <1%
Canada 5 <1%
India 5 <1%
Other 49 1%
Unknown 3179 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 511 15%
Student > Postgraduate 431 13%
Student > Master 421 13%
Researcher 325 10%
Other 309 9%
Other 917 28%
Unknown 406 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 1888 57%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 216 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 215 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 130 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 64 2%
Other 288 9%
Unknown 519 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2834. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 September 2020.
All research outputs
#813
of 15,906,076 outputs
Outputs from JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association
#43
of 28,164 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7
of 265,974 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association
#1
of 175 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,906,076 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 28,164 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 60.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 265,974 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 175 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.