ArticleJournal of human hypertension2009
Blood pressure variability and prevalence of hypertension using automated readings from multiple visits to a pharmacy-based community-wide programme.
Article in Journal of human hypertension, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Community pharmacy interventions for health promotion: effects on professional practice and health outcomes.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Prevalence of hypertension among travelers and stability of blood pressure control during travel: a cross-sectional descriptive study and prospective cohort study.Tropical diseases, travel medicine and vaccines · 2023Article
- Pharmacists' knowledge of automated blood pressure devices.Journal of human hypertension · 2022Article
- Burden, patterns, and impact of multimorbidity in North India: findings from a rural population-based study.BMC public health · 2022Article
- The effectiveness of screening for diabetes and cardiovascular disease risk factors in a community pharmacy setting.PloS one · 2014Article
- Hypertension management initiative prospective cohort study: comparison between immediate and delayed intervention groups.Journal of human hypertension · 2014Article
- Agreement between community pharmacy and ambulatory and home blood pressure measurement methods to assess the effectiveness of antihypertensive treatment: the MEPAFAR study.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2012Article
- Clinical value of blood pressure measurement in the community pharmacy.Pharmacy world & science : PWS · 2010Review
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Blood pressure (BP) measurements taken outside the routine office context may be a useful adjunct strategy to monitor BP. Community-based BP data can also provide estimates of the prevalence of elevated BP. We compared multiple readings taken on different days in pharmacies using an automated BpTRU device during a cardiovascular health programme targeting community-dwelling older adults. Mean systolic (S) and diastolic (D) BP values were compared over time using repeated measures analysis of variance for all participants with at least three separate sets of readings (n=317). BP variability was then examined among four subgroups based on report of antihypertensive medication or no treatment, and normal or elevated SBP at the initial visit (< or >or=140, or 130 if diabetes reported). Prevalence of elevated BP was compared across visits. Overall, mean SBP decreased between visits 1 and 2 (140.4 vs 137.1 mm Hg; P<0.001). Among participants with normal SBP at the initial visit, SBP did not vary significantly, whether or not antihypertensive treatment was reported. Those with initially elevated SBP experienced a significant decrease between visits 1 and 2, also regardless of treatment status. Prevalence of elevated BP decreased from visits 1 to 2 (55.8 vs 48.9%; P=0.026) and from visits 1 to 3 (55.8 vs 42.9%; P<0.001). Analyses of BP data from a community-based programme using an accurate device showed that initial readings may inflate the population estimate of elevated BP. Findings suggest that more than one set of BP readings measured on different occasions are needed, particularly if the first set is elevated.
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.