ArticleAtencion primaria2006
[Appraisal of self-measurement of blood pressure in the diagnosis of isolated clinical hypertension. VAMPAHICA study].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThere are no existing studies that appraise cardiovascular morbidity-mortality in patients diagnosed with isolated clinical hypertension (HCA) through self-measurement of blood pressure (AMPA).
objectiveTo find the prognostic value of AMPA for diagnosing HCA, by means of assessment of cardiovascular morbidity-mortality in clinical and out-patient measurement (MAPA) of blood pressure.
methodProspective study with 3 cohorts: 1) hypertense patients; 2) patients with HCA, and 3) patients with normal blood pressure. All patients seen at 14 primary care centres with newly diagnosed essential hypertension will be included. AMPA will distinguish who has HCA. One in every four patients will have a MAPA. In parallel, a cohort of people with normal pressure will be selected. The follow-up period will be 3 years. We calculate that the sample needed will be 1400 people. The main measurements will be the prevalence of lesions in the target organ and mortality due to cardiovascular disease in the 3 cohorts. The prevalence of HCA will also be worked out. DISCUSSION: If the AMPA technique is shown to be as valid as MAPA, then it can be used to diagnose HCA, which would be beneficial because of its accessibility, lower cost and greater comfort for patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.