Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20031865›Full record

ArticleCirculation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes2009

Comparing methods of measuring treatment intensification in hypertension care.

Adam J Rose, Dan R Berlowitz, Meredith Manze, Michelle B Orner, Nancy R Kressin

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Clinical inertia and the 2017 ACA/AHA guideline.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2018
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Therapeutic Inertia and Treatment Intensification.Current hypertension reports · 2018
    Review
  11. Understanding Uncontrolled Hypertension.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2016
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Gender differences in cardiovascular risk factors in incident diabetes.Women's health issues : official publication of the Jacobs Institute of Women's Health
    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

5 authors.

Adam J RoseCenter for Health Quality, Outcomes, and Economic Research, Bedford VA Medical Center, Bedford, MA 01730, USA. adamrose@bu.edu
Dan R Berlowitz
Meredith Manze
Michelle B Orner
Nancy R Kressin

Funding

Hypertension Control &Therapy AdherenceR01HL072814 · NHLBI · BOSTON UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CAMPUS · PI KRESSIN, NANCY R. · 2004 to 2007
$2.6M
NHLBI NIH HHS HL072814NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL072814
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGreater treatment intensification (TI) improves hypertension control. However, we do not know the ideal way to measure TI for research and quality improvement efforts. We compared the ability of different TI measures to predict blood pressure (BP) control. METHODS AND

resultsWe enrolled 819 hypertensive outpatients from an urban academic hospital. Each patient was assigned 3 scores to characterize TI. The any/none score divides patients into those who had any therapy increases during the study versus none. The norm-based method models the chance of a medication increase at each visit, then scores each patient based on whether they received more or fewer medication increases than predicted. The standard-based method is similar to the norm-based method but expects a medication increase whenever the blood pressure is uncontrolled. We compared the ability of these scores to predict the final systolic blood pressure (SBP). The any/none score showed a paradoxical result: any therapy increase was associated with SBP 4.6 mm Hg higher than no increase (P<0.001). The norm-based method score did not predict SBP in a linear fashion (P=0.18); further investigation revealed a U-shaped relationship between the norm-based method score and SBP. However, the standard-based method score was a strong linear predictor of SBP (2.1 mm Hg lower for each additional therapy increase per 10 visits, P<0.001). Similarly, the standard-based method predicted dichotomized blood pressure control, as measured by SBP <140 mm Hg (odds ratio, 1.30; P<0.001).

conclusionsOur results suggest that standard-based method is the preferred measure of treatment intensity for hypertension care.

Indexed as

Quality of Health CareAgedAmbulatory CareAntihypertensive AgentsBlood PressureChronic DiseaseFemaleHumansHypertensionMaleMiddle AgedOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CareAntihypertensive Agents

Identifiers

PMID20031865
PMCPMC2801893

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.