Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20733092›Full record

ArticleHypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979)2010

Trends in time to confirmation and recognition of new-onset hypertension, 2002-2006.

Joe V Selby, Janelle Lee, Bix E Swain, Heather M Tavel, P Michael Ho, Karen L Margolis, Patrick J O'Connor, Lawrence Fine, Julie A Schmittdiel, David J Magid

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979), 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Joe V SelbyDivision of Research, Kaiser Permanente, 2000 Broadway, Oakland, Calif 94612, USA. joe.selby@kp.org
Janelle Lee
Bix E Swain
Heather M Tavel
P Michael Ho
Karen L Margolis
Patrick J O'Connor
Lawrence Fine
Julie A Schmittdiel
David J Magid
University of Denver · USUniversity of Colorado Denver · USHealthPartners · USKaiser Permanente · US

Funding

UCSF/Kaiser-DOR Program for Developing Independent Women's Health ResearchersK12HD052163 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI ADLER, NANCY E, BRINDIS, CLAIRE D. · 2005 to 2023
$9.3M
HMO Research Network Cardiovascular Research NetworkU19HL091179 · NHLBI · KAISER FOUNDATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI GO, ALAN S · 2007 to 2011
$8.7M
NHLBI NIH HHS U19 HL091179NHLBI NIH HHS U19HL091179NICHD NIH HHS K12 HD052163NICHD NIH HHS K12HD052163
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Achieving full benefits of blood pressure control in populations requires prompt recognition of previously undetected hypertension. In 2003, the Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure provided definitions of hypertension and recommended that single elevated readings be confirmed within 1 to 2 months. We sought to determine whether the time required to confirm and recognize (ie, diagnose and/or treat) new-onset hypertension decreased from 2002 to 2006 for adult members of 2 large integrated healthcare delivery systems, Kaiser Permanente Northern California and Colorado. Using electronically stored office blood pressure readings, physician diagnoses, and pharmacy prescriptions, we identified 200 587 patients with new-onset hypertension (2002-2006) marked by 2 consecutive elevated blood pressure readings in previously undiagnosed, untreated members. Mean confirmation intervals (time from the first to second consecutive elevated reading) declined steadily from 103 to 89 days during this period. For persons recognized within 12 months after confirmation, the mean interval to recognition declined from 78 to 61 days. However, only 33% of individuals were recognized within 12 months. One third were never recognized during observed follow-up. For these patients, most subsequent blood pressure recordings were not elevated. Higher initial blood pressure levels, history of previous cardiovascular disease, and older age were associated with shorter times to recognition. Times to confirmation and recognition of new-onset hypertension have become shorter in recent years, especially for patients with higher cardiovascular disease risk. Variability in office-based blood pressure readings suggests that further improvements in recognition and treatment may be achieved with more specific automated approaches to identifying hypertension.

Indexed as

Age of OnsetBlood PressureBlood Pressure DeterminationCaliforniaColoradoFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansHypertensionIncidenceLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisRegistriesTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID20733092
PMCPMC2975575
OpenAlexW2155200623

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.