Response to Isolated systolic hypertension in young people is not spurious and should be treated: con side of the argument

Carmel M. McEniery; Stanley S. Franklin; John R. Cockcroft; Ian B. Wilkinson

doi:10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.116.06548

Response to Isolated systolic hypertension in young people is not spurious and should be treated: con side of the argument

Carmel M. McEniery, Stanley S. Franklin, John R. Cockcroft, Ian B. Wilkinson

Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences

Research output: Contribution to journal › Comment/opinion › peer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	280
Number of pages	1
Journal	Hypertension
Volume	68
Issue number	2
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.116.06548
Publication status	Published - 1 Aug 2016

Access to Document

10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.116.06548

Cite this

@article{b4532d6586a842a0b39a8a3477f010fd,

title = "Response to Isolated systolic hypertension in young people is not spurious and should be treated: con side of the argument",

author = "McEniery, {Carmel M.} and Franklin, {Stanley S.} and Cockcroft, {John R.} and Wilkinson, {Ian B.}",

year = "2016",

month = aug,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.116.06548",

language = "English",

volume = "68",

pages = "280",

journal = "Hypertension",

issn = "0194-911X",

publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",

number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Response to Isolated systolic hypertension in young people is not spurious and should be treated

T2 - con side of the argument

AU - McEniery, Carmel M.

AU - Franklin, Stanley S.

AU - Cockcroft, John R.

AU - Wilkinson, Ian B.

PY - 2016/8/1

Y1 - 2016/8/1

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84978891201&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.116.06548

DO - 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.116.06548

M3 - Comment/opinion

C2 - 27324227

AN - SCOPUS:84978891201

SN - 0194-911X

VL - 68

SP - 280

JO - Hypertension

JF - Hypertension

IS - 2

ER -

Response to Isolated systolic hypertension in young people is not spurious and should be treated: con side of the argument

Access to Document

Other files and links

Cite this