Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10976255›Full record

ArticleCMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne2000

When should hypertension be treated? The different perspectives of Canadian family physicians and patients.

F A McAlister, A M O'Connor, G Wells, S A Grover, A Laupacis

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 84 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Getting (Along) With the Guidelines: Reconciling Patient Autonomy and Quality Improvement Through Shared Decision Making.Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges · 2016
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. The "number needed to treat" turns 20--and continues to be used and misused.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2008
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

F A McAlisterDivision of General Internal Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton. Finlay.McAlister@ualberta.ca
A M O'Connor
G Wells
S A Grover
A Laupacis
University of Alberta · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHypertension guidelines from different organizations often specify different treatment thresholds, and none explicitly state how these thresholds were chosen. This study was undertaken to determine the treatment thresholds of family physicians and hypertensive patients for mild, uncomplicated essential hypertension. A subject's treatment threshold can be determined by eliciting the minimum reduction in cardiovascular risk that he or she feels outweighs the inconvenience, costs and side effects of antihypertensive therapy (the minimal clinically important difference [MCID]).

methodsThe study subjects consisted of a random sample of family physicians and a consecutive sample of hypertensive patients without overt cardiovascular disease from Ottawa and Edmonton. To determine participants' MCIDs, we used a survey employing hypothetical scenarios (each depicting a different baseline cardiovascular risk) and a probability trade-off tool.

resultsOf 94 family physicians and 146 patients approached for the study, 72 and 74 participated respectively. There was marked variability in the MCIDs of both groups. In general, patients were less likely to want antihypertensive therapy than physicians, particularly when baseline cardiovascular risks were low: 49% v. 64% (p = 0.06), 68% v. 92% (p < 0.001) and 86% v. 100% (p = 0.001) for 5-year cardiovascular risks of 2%, 5% and 10% respectively. Moreover, patients expressed larger MCIDs (i.e., wanted greater benefits before accepting therapy) than physicians. However, a subgroup of patients (15% to 26%, depending on the scenario) wanted treatment even if there was no anticipated benefit. Multivariate analysis showed that no sociodemographic factors strongly predicted the MCIDs of either group.

interpretationGuidelines that set treatment thresholds on the basis of physician or expert opinion may not accurately reflect the preferences of hypertensive patients. There is a need for patient decision aids and attention to patient preferences when initiation of antihypertensive therapy is considered for the prevention of cardiovascular disease. Further research is needed to define treatment thresholds for other chronic conditions and in other groups.

Indexed as

Decision MakingPatient Acceptance of Health CareAdultAlbertaAttitude of Health PersonnelChi-Square DistributionFemaleHealth Services Needs and DemandHumansHypertensionLinear ModelsMaleMiddle AgedOntarioPhysicians, FamilyPractice Guidelines as Topic

Identifiers

PMID10976255
PMCPMC80373
OpenAlexW1945374009

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.