Trial reportThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2005
Improving management of hypertension in general practice: a randomised controlled trial of feedback derived from electronic patient data.
Trial report in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Exploring equity in audit and feedback trials: Secondary analysis of a systematic review.PloS one · 2026Pooled it
- Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Cardiovascular disease risk communication and prevention: a meta-analysis.European heart journal · 2024Pooled it
- Efficacy of sustained knowledge translation (KT) interventions in chronic disease management in older adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of complex interventions.BMC medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Patient-mediated interventions to improve professional practice.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012Pooled it
- Interventions used to improve control of blood pressure in patients with hypertension.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2010Pooled it
- Audit-based education lowers systolic blood pressure in chronic kidney disease: the Quality Improvement in CKD (QICKD) trial results.Kidney international · 2013Trial
- Prescribing Data in General Practice Demonstration (PDGPD) project--a cluster randomised controlled trial of a quality improvement intervention to achieve better prescribing for chronic heart failure and hypertension.BMC health services research · 2012Trial
- Article
- How to assure the quality of clinical records? A 7-year experience in a large academic hospital.PloS one · 2021Article
- Ten-Year Follow-Up of Clinical Governance Implementation in Primary Care: Improving Screening, Diagnosis and Control of Cardiovascular Risk Factors.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
- Toward Standardized Monitoring of Patients With Chronic Diseases in Primary Care Using Electronic Medical Records: Systematic Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2019Review
- "My approach to this job is...one person at a time": Perceived discordance between population-level quality targets and patient-centred care.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2014Article
- Trust, confidentiality, and the acceptability of sharing HIV-related patient data: lessons learned from a mixed methods study about Health Information Exchanges.Implementation science : IS · 2012Article
- Implementing and maintaining a researchable database from electronic medical records: a perspective from an academic family medicine department.Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante · 2009Article
- Identifying individuals for primary cardiovascular disease prevention in UK general practice: priorities and resource implications.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2008Article
- The Sandwell Project: a controlled evaluation of a programme of targeted screening for prevention of cardiovascular disease in primary care.BMC public health · 2008Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough absolute risk of death associated with raised blood pressure increases with age, the benefits of treatment are greater in older patients. However, fewer patients in this group are identified, treated, and controlled.
aimTo evaluate the impact of the provision of different levels of feedback on identification, treatment, and control of older patients with hypertension. DESIGN OF STUDY: Randomised controlled trial.
settingFifty-two Scottish general practices.
methodPractices were randomly allocated to either control (n = 19), audit only feedback (n = 16), or audit plus risk feedback, prioritising patients by absolute risk (n = 17). Electronic data were extracted from practice computer systems annually from 1999 to 2001 and used to develop feedback. Data were collected for 30 345 patients aged 65-79 years.
resultsThe majority of known patients with hypertension in each group had an initial blood pressure recorded (control = 89.6%; audit = 80.4%; risk = 96.1%) and this increased over the study period (control = 92.3%; audit = 86.0%; risk = 96.6%). Initially, more than 80% of patients in each group were treated but many were uncontrolled (blood pressure >/=160/ >/=90 mmHg) (control = 41.5%; audit = 41.3%; risk = 36.1%). The numbers of untreated and uncontrolled patients in each group reduced (control = 32.3%; audit = 38.3%; risk = 32.6%). There was some evidence of a significant difference in mean systolic pressure between the audit plus risk and audit only groups: (149.6 versus 152.7 mmHg; P = 0.019) and of significantly greater control in the audit plus risk group compared with the other groups 49.4% (versus audit only = 35.4%; versus control = 46.5%; odds ratio = 1.72 [95% confidence interval = 1.09 to 2.70]; P = 0.019).
conclusionsLevels of identification, treatment, and control improved in each group. Although there were still significant numbers of patients with uncontrolled hypertension, there is some evidence to suggest that providing patient-specific feedback may have a positive impact on identification and management of hypertension in older people and produce an increase in control.
Indexed as
Identifiers
15720929PMC1463214What 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.