Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) vs placebo or no treatment: All‐cause mortality (RR)
Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) showed no clear difference in all‐cause mortality (RR) compared with placebo or no treatment (high certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) vs placebo or no treatment All‐cause mortality (RR) · patients with chronic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) showed no clear difference in all‐cause mortality (RR) compared with placebo or no treatment (high certainty). Beta‐blockers and inhibitors of the renin‐angiotensin aldosterone system for chronic heart failure with… (2021) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 1.01 [0.92, 1.11] | 4 studies · 7964 participants | High |
ARB vs placebo or no treatment All‐cause mortality (RR) · chronic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction ARB showed no clear difference in all‐cause mortality (RR) compared with placebo or no treatment (high certainty). Beta‐blockers and inhibitors of the renin‐angiotensin aldosterone system for chronic heart failure with… (2018) · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyearlier version CD012721.PUB2, superseded | RR 1.01 [0.92, 1.11] | 4 studies · 7964 participants | High |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Beta‐blockers and inhibitors of the renin‐angiotensin aldosterone system for chronic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.