ArticleAtencion primaria2001
[Diagnosis and monitoring of hypertension in Catalonia. The DISEHTAC study].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- [Is the action taken by Catalonian primary care doctors adequate in view of the insufficient reduction in blood pressure levels in hypertensive patients? DISEHTAC-2001 study].Atencion primaria · 2008Article
- [Current situation of hypertensive patients over 75 years old: the DISEHTAE study].Atencion primaria · 2008Article
- [Follow-up and monitoring of hypertension. Is this performed the same in the autochthonous and immigrant populations?].Atencion primaria · 2007Article
- [Compliance with hypertension therapy in Spain, according to the views of family doctors. Complex project].Atencion primaria · 2007Article
- [The DISEHTAC II study: diagnosis and follow-up of hypertension in Catalonia. comparison with 1996 data].Atencion primaria · 2005Article
- [Detection of cardiovascular risk factors in the reformed primary care network in Catalonia. Comparison between the years 1995 and 2000].Atencion primaria · 2003Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the diagnosis, monitoring and control of hypertension in reformed primary care centres in Catalonia, on the basis of the evaluation indicators proposed in the primary care hypertension guidelines.
designMulti-centre cross-sectional descriptive study.Setting. Primary care.Participants. 31 reformed PCC in Catalonia. Randomised sampling of centres and hypertense patients (n = 2240). External audit. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsa) Diagnosis indicator: in 19.4% of cases a triple double-take of blood pressure showed an average of = 140/90 mmHg. b) Monitoring indicator: 77.9% of patients had been seen for blood pressure in the previous 6 months. c) Indicator of degree of control of blood pressure: 38.8% of patients had pressure below the figures then recommended ((3/4) 65 < 140/90 mmHg, and > 65, < 160/95 mmHg). 25.7% of cases were found to have blood pressure figures < 140/90 mmHg.
conclusionsThere was high compliance on the monitoring indicator. The degree of control of hypertense patients treated at reformed PCCs is still low.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.