Home › Research › Risk factors
The design and rationale of a multicenter clinical trial comparing two strategies for control of systolic blood pressure: the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT)
Ambrosius WT, Sink KM, Foy CG, Berlowitz DR, Cheung AK, Cushman WC, Fine LJ, Goff DC et al.. Clinical trials (London, England), 2014-06-05
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background High blood pressure is an important public health concern because it is highly prevalent and a risk factor for adverse health outcomes, including coronary heart disease, stroke, decompensated heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and decline in cognitive function. Observational studies show a progressive increase in risk associated with blood pressure above 115/75 mm Hg. Prior research has shown that reducing elevated systolic blood pressure lowers the risk of subsequent clinical complications from cardiovascular disease. However, the optimal systolic blood pressure to reduce blood pressure-related adverse outcomes is unclear, and the benefit of treating to a level of systolic blood pressure well below 140 mm Hg has not been proven in a large, definitive clinical trial. Purpose To describe the design considerations of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) and the baseline characteristics of trial participants. Methods The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial is a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial that compares two strategies for treating systolic blood pressure: one targets the standard target of Results Between 8 November 2010 and 15 March 2013, Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial recruited and randomized 9361 people at 102 clinics, including 3331 women, 2648 with chronic kidney disease, 1877 with a history of cardiovascular disease, 3962 minorities, and 2636 ≥75 years of age. Limitations Although the overall recruitment target was met, the numbers recruited in the high-risk subgroups were lower than planned. Conclusions The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial will provide important information on the risks and benefits of intensive blood pressure treatment targets in a diverse sample of high-risk participants, including those with prior cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and those aged ≥75 years.
Key findings
- Observational studies show a progressive increase in risk associated with blood pressure above 115/75 mm Hg.
- Prior research has shown that reducing elevated systolic blood pressure lowers the risk of subsequent clinical complications from cardiovascular disease.
- Methods The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial is a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial that compares two strategies for treating systolic blood pressure: one targets the standard target of <140 mm Hg, and the other targets a more intensive target of <120 mm Hg.
- Limitations Although the overall recruitment target was met, the numbers recruited in the high-risk subgroups were lower than planned.
Why it matters
This describes the design of a large randomized trial comparing two strategies for treating systolic blood pressure, noting that high blood pressure is a risk factor for decline in cognitive function. It reports the trial's design and participant numbers, not results on whether blood pressure treatment prevents dementia.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →
Study details
- Participants9,361
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 61/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Clinical trials (London, England)) |
| Journal's citation record | 1 / 4 | Clinical Trials: journal h-index 93 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29) |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2014 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 3 / 4 | 9,361 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | 6 / 7 | Cited 544 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 4 / 5 | 38.9 citations a year over 14 year(s) since 2014 |
| Impact for its field and year | 5 / 6 | Cited 30.4× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 2 / 6 | Cited by 9 other studies in this library |
| Still being cited | 3 / 4 | Cited 101 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | 4 / 4 | Last-listed author Paul Kieran Whelton: h-index 121 (OpenAlex, whole career) |
| Institution's track record | 2 / 3 | University of Minnesota: institution h-index 1,568 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 3 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 15 institution(s) in 1 country |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 24902920) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Total | 61 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Ambrosius, W. T., Sink, K. M., Foy, C. G., Berlowitz, D. R., Cheung, A. K., Cushman, W. C., et al. (2014). The design and rationale of a multicenter clinical trial comparing two strategies for control of systolic blood pressure: the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT). Clinical trials (London, England). https://doi.org/10.1177/1740774514537404
Vancouver
Ambrosius WT, Sink KM, Foy CG, Berlowitz DR, Cheung AK, Cushman WC, et al. The design and rationale of a multicenter clinical trial comparing two strategies for control of systolic blood pressure: the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT). Clinical trials (London, England). 2014. doi:10.1177/1740774514537404. PMID: 24902920.
BibTeX
@article{ambrosius2014-24902920,
author = {Ambrosius, W. T. and Sink, K. M. and Foy, C. G. and Berlowitz, D. R. and Cheung, A. K. and Cushman, W. C. and Fine, L. J. and Goff, D. C. and others},
title = {{The design and rationale of a multicenter clinical trial comparing two strategies for control of systolic blood pressure: the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT)}},
journal = {Clinical trials (London, England)},
year = {2014},
doi = {10.1177/1740774514537404},
pmid = {24902920},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1177/1740774514537404}
}
Studies this one cites
Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.
Later studies that cite this one
9 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references. Showing the 8 highest-scoring.
Related studies in Risk factors
Also in Risk factors
356 studies in the library are filed under Risk factors with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Risk factors hub.