ArticleHypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979)2010
Trends in time to confirmation and recognition of new-onset hypertension, 2002-2006.
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.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Medication Adherence and Treatment-Resistant Hypertension in Newly Treated Hypertensive Patients in the United Arab Emirates.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Using Electronic Health Records in Longitudinal Studies: Estimating Patient Attrition.Medical care · 2020Article
- Identifying hypertension in pregnancy using electronic medical records: The importance of blood pressure values.Pregnancy hypertension · 2020Article
- An investigation of associations between clinicians' ethnic or racial bias and hypertension treatment, medication adherence and blood pressure control.Journal of general internal medicine · 2014Article
- Initial persistence with antihypertensive therapies is associated with depression treatment persistence, but not depression.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2014Article
- Undiagnosed hypertension among young adults with regular primary care use.Journal of hypertension · 2014Article
- Benefits of early hypertension control on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with diabetes.Diabetes care · 2013Article
- Sex differences in cardiovascular outcomes in patients with incident hypertension.Journal of hypertension · 2013Article
- Health system factors and antihypertensive adherence in a racially and ethnically diverse cohort of new users.JAMA internal medicine · 2013Article
- Longitudinal study of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: methods and clinical characteristics of patients receiving implantable cardioverter-defibrillators for primary prevention in contemporary practice.Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes · 2012Article
- Comparative effectiveness of 2 β-blockers in hypertensive patients.Archives of internal medicine · 2012Article
- Simultaneous control of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia in 2 health systems.Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes · 2012Article
- The association between medication adherence and treatment intensification with blood pressure control in resistant hypertension.Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) · 2012Article
- Article
- Efficacy of fixed-dose amlodipine and losartan combination compared with amlodipine monotherapy in stage 2 hypertension: a randomized, double blind, multicenter study.BMC research notes · 2011Article
- Missed opportunities in cardiovascular disease prevention?: low rates of hypertension recognition for women at medicine and obstetrics-gynecology clinics.Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) · 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
10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.