Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16115830›Full record

Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2005

Targets and self monitoring in hypertension: randomised controlled trial and cost effectiveness analysis.

R J McManus, J Mant, A Roalfe, R A Oakes, S Bryan, H M Pattison, F D R Hobbs

Open access · bronzeAbstract readClinical TrialMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 63 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

63 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 139 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Self-monitoring and other non-pharmacological interventions to improve the management of hypertension in primary care: a systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2010
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. A texting-based blood pressure surveillance intervention.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2019
    Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Article
  20. Article

3 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

R J McManusDepartment of Primary Care and General Practice, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT. r.j.mcmanus@bham.ac.uk
J Mant
A Roalfe
R A Oakes
S Bryan
H M Pattison
F D R Hobbs
University of Birmingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess whether blood pressure control in primary care could be improved with the use of patient held targets and self monitoring in a practice setting, and to assess the impact of these on health behaviours, anxiety, prescribed antihypertensive drugs, patients' preferences, and costs.

designRandomised controlled trial.

settingEight general practices in south Birmingham.

participants441 people receiving treatment in primary care for hypertension but not controlled below the target of < 140/85 mm Hg.

interventionsPatients in the intervention group received treatment targets along with facilities to measure their own blood pressure at their general practice; they were also asked to visit their general practitioner or practice nurse if their blood pressure was repeatedly above the target level. Patients in the control group received usual care (blood pressure monitoring by their practice).

main outcome measuresPRIMARY OUTCOME: change in systolic blood pressure at six months and one year in both intervention and control groups. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: change in health behaviours, anxiety, prescribed antihypertensive drugs, patients' preferences of method of blood pressure monitoring, and costs.

results400 (91%) patients attended follow up at one year. Systolic blood pressure in the intervention group had significantly reduced after six months (mean difference 4.3 mm Hg (95% confidence interval 0.8 mm Hg to 7.9 mm Hg)) but not after one year (mean difference 2.7 mm Hg (- 1.2 mm Hg to 6.6 mm Hg)). No overall difference was found in diastolic blood pressure, anxiety, health behaviours, or number of prescribed drugs. Patients who self monitored lost more weight than controls (as evidenced by a drop in body mass index), rated self monitoring above monitoring by a doctor or nurse, and consulted less often. Overall, self monitoring did not cost significantly more than usual care (251 pounds sterling (437 dollars; 364 euros) (95% confidence interval 233 pounds sterling to 275 pounds sterling) versus 240 pounds sterling (217 pounds sterling to 263 pounds sterling).

conclusionsPractice based self monitoring resulted in small but significant improvements of blood pressure at six months, which were not sustained after a year. Self monitoring was well received by patients, anxiety did not increase, and there was no appreciable additional cost. Practice based self monitoring is feasible and results in blood pressure control that is similar to that in usual care.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAntihypertensive AgentsAnxietyBlood PressureBlood Pressure Monitoring, AmbulatoryCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHealth BehaviorHumansHypertensionMaleMiddle AgedPatient SatisfactionSystoleAntihypertensive Agents

Identifiers

PMID16115830
PMCPMC1199029
OpenAlexW2100806101

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.