Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19279657›Full record

ArticleJournal of human hypertension2009

Blood pressure recording bias during a period when the Quality and Outcomes Framework was introduced.

I M Carey, C M Nightingale, S DeWilde, T Harris, P H Whincup, D G Cook

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Terminal Digit Preference in Pulmonary Hypertension Endpoints.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2022
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Pay-for-performance: impact on diabetes.Current diabetes reports · 2013
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

I M CareyDivision of Community Health Sciences, St George's, University of London, London, UK. i.carey@sgul.ac.uk
C M Nightingale
S DeWilde
T Harris
P H Whincup
D G Cook
St George's, University of London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The 2004 UK Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) remunerates general practitioners for achieving a target blood pressure (BP) of <or=150/90 mm Hg for patients with ischaemic heart disease, stroke and hypertension. Using the DIN-LINK GP database, we investigated whether introducing the target altered BP recording. We extracted 3 164 189 BP measurements from 236 467 patients, with the above diagnoses from 2000 to 2005. Treatment was assessed by Read codes indicating prescriptions for antihypertensive drugs. Over this period, recorded systolic BP (SBP) fell: 36% had an SBP >150 mm Hg in 2000-2001, and only 19% in 2004-2005. However, there was a trend towards recording systolic values just below, rather than just above the 150 cut-off. In 2000-2001, 2.3% of patients had 148-149 recorded and 1.8% had 151-152. In 2004-2005, the figures were 4.2 and 1.3%, respectively. By smoothing the distribution we estimate that the true percentage of patients with SBP>150 mm Hg in 2004-2005 was 23%, rather than the 19% recorded. Moreover, patients with a recorded SBP=148-149 were more likely to have a recorded diastolic BP<or=90 (93%) than patients with SBP=151-152 (78%). However, patients just below the 150 mm Hg cut-off received more antihypertensive treatment than those just above it (odds ratio=1.20, 95% confidence interval 1.01-1.41). We conclude that blood pressure levels in UK primary care have continued to fall through the introduction of QOF, offering significant public health benefits in the future. This fall has been exaggerated due to values being clustered just below the QOF target, but there is no evidence of adverse effects of this on clinical management.

Indexed as

Antihypertensive AgentsBiasBlood Pressure DeterminationFamily PracticeHumansHypertensionOdds RatioOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CarePhysician Incentive PlansPractice Patterns, Physicians'Predictive Value of TestsReimbursement, IncentiveReproducibility of ResultsTime FactorsUnited KingdomAntihypertensive Agents

Identifiers

PMID19279657
OpenAlexW2077829490

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.