Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15469676›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2004

Cost-effectiveness of implementing new guidelines for treatment of hypertension in general practice.

Gerald Richardson, Lesley Godfrey, Hugh Gravelle, Ian Watt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

4 authors.

Gerald RichardsonCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK. gar2@york.ac.uk
Lesley Godfrey
Hugh Gravelle
Ian Watt

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHypertension is a major public health concern and, as the population ages, the size of the problem is likely to increase. However, detection rates and treatment of hypertension have been low. The introduction of new guidelines for the detection and treatment of hypertension have been encouraged but without any consideration to their cost-effectiveness.

aimTo assess the potential cost-effectiveness of implementing new guidelines for the treatment of hypertension in general practice. DESIGN OF STUDY: Model examining the incremental costs and effects of the new guidelines compared with the old.

settingA large general practice in north Yorkshire.

methodTwo thousand and twenty-three patients reporting for a new health patient check had the costs and outcomes under the old and new guidelines estimated.

resultsImplementing new guidelines for the detection, management, and treatment of hypertension in a primary care setting is more costly than the implementation of previous guidelines, but more effective in reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease. The incremental cost per cardiovascular disease event avoided is ?30 000, although sensitivity analysis shows that the estimate is subject to considerable uncertainty.

conclusionsCompared with previous guidelines, introducing new guidelines for the management and treatment of hypertension in new patients in general practice is likely to be cost-effective. However, the workforce implications for general practitioners (GPs) and practice nurses should be considered.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicAdolescentAdultAntihypertensive AgentsCoronary DiseaseCost-Benefit AnalysisFamily PracticeFemaleHumansHypertensionMaleSensitivity and SpecificityStrokeAntihypertensive Agents

Identifiers

PMID15469676
PMCPMC1324882

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.