ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2006
Assessing blood pressure control in patients treated for hypertension: comparing different measurements and targets.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Blood pressure recording bias during a period when the Quality and Outcomes Framework was introduced.Journal of human hypertension · 2009Article
- Under pressure.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on byUnder pressure.2006
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We examined how different methods and definitions of blood pressure affect the achievement of targets in general practice. There was a wide range in the proportion of treated patients achieving the different target levels recommended by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, British Hypertension Society and the general medical services contract. Among non-diabetic patients this ranged from; 10-37% (average office), 15-39% (standardised nurse measurement), 11-49% (last recorded) and 31-56% (ambulatory blood pressure). Defining targets without a clear definition of how blood pressure should be measured is largely meaningless and ignoring ambulatory blood pressure results in many patients being classified incorrectly as failing to achieve targets.
Indexed as
Identifiers
16638254PMC1837847W204626092What 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.