ReviewPharmacy world & science : PWS2010
Clinical value of blood pressure measurement in the community pharmacy.
Review in Pharmacy world & science : PWS, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A comparison of blood pressure in community pharmacies with ambulatory, home and general practitioner office readings: systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of hypertension · 2017Pooled it
- 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
- Predictors of the community pharmacy white-coat effect in treated hypertensive patients. The MEPAFAR study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aim of the studyTo investigate whether the measurement of blood pressure in the community pharmacy is a valuable method to diagnose hypertension, to assess the need and the effectiveness of anti-hypertensive treatments, or, in general, to make clinical decisions.
methodInformation has been extracted from articles published in English and in Spanish, from January 1989 to December 2009, in indexed magazines in MEDLINE and EMBASE. To perform the search, multiple and specified terms related to the community pharmacy setting, to blood pressure measurement and to the comparison and agreement between blood pressure measurement methods were used. Selected articles were those that: (1) compared and/or measured the agreement (concordance) between community pharmacy blood pressure measurements obtained in repeated occasions, or (2) compared and/or measured the agreement between the community pharmacy blood pressure measurement method and other measurement methods used in clinical practice for decision-making purposes: blood pressure measurement by a physician, by a nurse and home or ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Articles were included and analyzed by two investigators independently, who essentially extracted the main results of the manuscripts, emphasizing the assessment of the blood pressure measurement methods used and the completed statistical analysis.
resultsOnly three studies comparing the community pharmacy blood pressure measurement method with other methods and one comparing repeated measurements of community pharmacy blood pressure were found. Moreover, these works present significant biases and limitations, both in terms of method and statistical analysis, which make difficult to draw consistent conclusions.
conclusionFurther research of high quality is needed, which results can guide the clinical decision-making based on the community pharmacy blood pressure measurement method.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20652831What 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.