Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15720929›Full record

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.

Elizabeth Mitchell, Frank Sullivan, Jeremy M Grimshaw, Peter T Donnan, Graham Watt

Abstract readClinical TrialMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Patient-mediated interventions to improve professional practice.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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 · 2008
    Article
  18. Article
  19. 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.

Elizabeth MitchellTayside Centre for General Practice, University of Dundee, Dundee. e.d.mitchell@chs.dundee.ac.uk
Frank Sullivan
Jeremy M Grimshaw
Peter T Donnan
Graham Watt

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

FeedbackAgedBlood PressureFamily PracticeFemaleHumansHypertensionMaleMedical AuditMedical InformaticsMedical Records Systems, ComputerizedScotland

Identifiers

PMID15720929
PMCPMC1463214

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.