ALLHAT: A critical assessment
Blood Pressure, ISSN: 0803-7051, Vol: 13, Issue: 2, Page: 75-79
2004
- 6Citations
- 14Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations6
- Citation Indexes6
- CrossRef5
- Captures14
- Readers14
- 14
Article Description
The ALLHAT study has attracted considerable attention in the media and in the research community, partly due to the study's unexpected and controversial conclusions. However, the study has several serious shortcomings. The primary end-points in ALLHAT were negative and the conclusions are based entirely on secondary end-points and subgroup analyses. Moreover, there is good reason for skepticism concerning the findings on heart failure in ALLHAT, because of ambiguity in the diagnosis, lack of information on blood pressure and absence of a "washout" period. The study design was severely flawed and does not reflect clinical reality. Also, blood pressure differences between groups severely complicate interpretation. From a patient perspective in ALLHAT, there are drug safety concerns with the thiazides, as there was evidence of excess diabetes development. The ALLHAT results are difficult to generalize and have limited relevance in European settings. Thus, the ALLHAT study suffers from several major shortcomings and there is a huge body of evidence that contradicts the ALLHAT interpretations. © 2004 Taylor & Francis on licence from Blood Pressure.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know