Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23823583›Full record

ArticleJournal of human hypertension2014

Self-monitoring in hypertension: a web-based survey of primary care physicians.

R J McManus, S Wood, E P Bray, P Glasziou, A Hayen, C Heneghan, J Mant, P Padfield, J F Potter, F D R Hobbs

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of human hypertension, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Self-monitoring blood pressure in patients with hypertension: an internet-based survey of UK GPs.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2016
    Article
  19. Patients' and clinicians' views on the optimum schedules for self-monitoring of blood pressure: a qualitative focus group and interview study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2016
    Article
  20. 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.

R J McManusPrimary Care Health Sciences, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
S WoodPrimary Care Clinical Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
E P BrayPrimary Care Clinical Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
P GlasziouFaculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
A HayenScreening and Test Evaluation Program, School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
C HeneghanPrimary Care Health Sciences, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
J MantPrimary Care Unit, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
P PadfieldSchool of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, College of Medicine and Veterinary Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
J F PotterAgeing & Stroke Medicine Section, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
F D R HobbsPrimary Care Health Sciences, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Funding

Department of Health NIHR-RP-02-12-015
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although self-monitoring of blood pressure is common among people with hypertension, little is known about how general practitioners (GPs) use such readings. This survey aimed to ascertain current views and practice on self-monitoring of UK primary care physicians. An internet-based survey of UK GPs was undertaken using a provider of internet services to UK doctors. The hyperlink to the survey was opened by 928 doctors, and 625 (67%) GPs completed the questionnaire. Of them, 557 (90%) reported having patients who self-monitor, 191 (34%) had a monitor that they lend to patients, 171 (31%) provided training in self-monitoring for their patients and 52 (9%) offered training to other GPs. Three hundred and sixty-seven GPs (66%) recommended at least two readings per day, and 416 (75%) recommended at least 4 days of monitoring at a time. One hundred and eighty (32%) adjusted self-monitored readings to take account of lower pressures in out-of-office settings, and 10/5 mm Hg was the most common adjustment factor used. Self-monitoring of blood pressure was widespread among the patients of responding GPs. Although the majority used appropriate schedules of measurement, some GPs suggested much more frequent home measurements than usual. Further, interpretation of home blood pressure was suboptimal, with only a minority recognising that values for diagnosis and on-treatment target are lower than those for clinic measurement. Subsequent national guidance may improve this situation but will require adequate implementation.

Indexed as

Blood PressurePractice Patterns, Physicians'Primary Health CareSelf CareAttitude of Health PersonnelBlood Pressure DeterminationFemaleHealth Care SurveysHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansHypertensionInternetMalePatient Education as TopicPredictive Value of TestsReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID23823583

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.