AMR vs Iceland: Hypertension: effective treatment coverage (controlled hypertension)
AMR
37.3%
in 2019
Iceland
52.6%
in 2019
AMR rank
2nd
Iceland rank
3rd
Hypertension: effective treatment coverage (controlled hypertension) over time
- AMR
- Iceland
How they compare
Iceland currently reports 52.6% against 37.3% in AMR, a difference of 15.3%.
That makes Iceland's figure about 1.4 times AMR's.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 30 shared years of data; in 1990 it was AMR ahead.
AMR ranks 2nd and Iceland ranks 3rd of 17 groups.
Across the 3 decades both report, AMR averaged higher in 1 and Iceland in 2.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | AMR | Iceland | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1990s | 17.6% | 14.9% | 2.6% | AMR |
| 2000s | 27.4% | 31.8% | 4.4% | Iceland |
| 2010s | 35.8% | 48.5% | 12.7% | Iceland |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher hypertension: effective treatment coverage (controlled hypertension), AMR or Iceland?
- Iceland, at 52.6% against 37.3% in AMR as of 2019.
- What is the difference in hypertension: effective treatment coverage (controlled hypertension) between AMR and Iceland?
- 15.3%, with Iceland ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for AMR and Iceland?
- 30 years are reported by both, from 1990 to 2019.
- How do AMR and Iceland rank globally for hypertension: effective treatment coverage (controlled hypertension)?
- AMR ranks 2nd and Iceland ranks 3rd of 17 groups.
- Where does this data come from?
- World Health Organization, Global Health Observatory, published as Hypertension: effective treatment coverage (controlled hypertension) among adults aged 30-79 with hypertension, crude (%). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.