Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17132351›Full record

Trial reportThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2006

Impact on hypertension control of a patient-held guideline: a randomised controlled trial.

Brian McKinstry, Janet Hanley, David Heaney, Lucy McCloughan, Rob Elton, David J Webb

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report 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 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Patient-mediated interventions to improve professional practice.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  2. 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
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Patient-held clinical guidelines for hypertension--a step too far?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2007
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Brian McKinstryCommunity Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh. brian.mckinstry@ed.ac.uk
Janet Hanley
David Heaney
Lucy McCloughan
Rob Elton
David J Webb

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHypertension is generally poorly controlled in primary care. One possible intervention for improving control is the harnessing of patient expertise through education and encouragement to challenge their care.

aimTo determine whether encouraging patients to manage their hypertension in an 'expert' manner, by providing them with information in a clear clinical guideline, coupled with an explicit exhortation to become involved in and to challenge their own care if appropriate, would improve their care. DESIGN OF STUDY: Single blind randomised controlled trial of detailed guideline versus standard information.

settingSingle urban general practice over 1 year.

methodPatient-held guideline with written explicit exhortation to challenge care when appropriate. Two hundred and ninety-four of 536 eligible patients on the practice hypertension register were recruited, all of whom were randomised into one of two groups. Two hundred and thirty-six patients completed the study.

resultsPRIMARY OUTCOME: average systolic blood pressure. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: proportion of patients with blood pressure < 150 mmHg systolic and < 90 mmHg diastolic, average cholesterol, proportion of patients prescribed statins and aspirin according to guideline, hospital anxiety and depression score. No clinically, or statistically significant differences were found between intervention and control with respect to all parameters or in anxiety and depression levels. Statin and aspirin use improved throughout the course of the study in both groups. Statin use showed a trend (P = 0.02) in favour of control.

conclusionIn this study there was no clinically significant perceived benefit to patients as a result of providing them with a hypertension guideline. Patient guidelines are currently planned for many chronic illnesses. It is important to determine the utility of such interventions before scarce resources are applied to them.

Indexed as

Guideline AdherencePatient ParticipationPractice Guidelines as TopicAgedAntihypertensive AgentsBlood Pressure Monitoring, AmbulatoryFamily PracticeFemaleHumansHypertensionMaleMiddle AgedPatient CompliancePatient Education as TopicPhysician-Patient RelationsSingle-Blind MethodAntihypertensive Agents

Identifiers

PMID17132351
PMCPMC1927092

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.