Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25801901›Full record

SynthesisAmerican journal of hypertension2015

Self-Screening and Non-Physician Screening for Hypertension in Communities: A Systematic Review.

Susannah Fleming, Helen Atherton, David McCartney, James Hodgkinson, Sheila Greenfield, Frederick David Richard Hobbs, Jonathan Mant, Richard J McManus, Matthew Thompson, Alison Ward and 1 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in American journal of hypertension, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

45 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 67 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Global trends in hypertension prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control.Current opinion in nephrology and hypertension · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Socioeconomic characteristics of African American women attending community blood pressure screenings.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2022
    Article
  20. Observational
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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Susannah FlemingNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK;
Helen AthertonNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK;
David McCartneyNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK;
James HodgkinsonPrimary Care Clinical Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK;
Sheila GreenfieldPrimary Care Clinical Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK;
Frederick David Richard HobbsNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK;
Jonathan MantPrimary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK;
Richard J McManusNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK;
Matthew ThompsonNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Department of Family Medicine, University of Washington, Washington, Seattle, USA.
Alison WardNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; alison.ward@phc.ox.ac.uk.
Carl HeneghanNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK;
University of Oxford · GBUniversity of Birmingham · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GB

Funding

Department of Health CDF/01/017Department of Health NIHR-RP-02-12-015Department of Health RP-PG-1209-10051
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCommunity-based self-screening may provide opportunities to increase detection of hypertension, and identify raised blood pressure (BP) in populations who do not access healthcare. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of non-physician screening and self-screening of BP in community settings.

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Trials Register, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Science Citation Index & Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science to November 2013 to identify studies reporting community-based self-screening or non-physician screening for hypertension in adults. Results were stratified by study site, screener, and the cut-off used to define high screening BP.

resultsWe included 73 studies, which described screening in 9 settings, with pharmacies (22%) and public areas/retail (15%) most commonly described. We found high levels of heterogeneity in all analyses, despite stratification. The highest proportions of eligible participants screened were achieved by mobile units (range 21%-88%) and pharmacies (range 40%-90%). Self-screeners had similar median rates of high BP detection (25%-35%) to participants in studies using other screeners. Few (16%) studies reported referral to primary care after screening. However, where participants were referred, a median of 44% (range 17%-100%) received a new hypertension diagnosis or antihypertensive medication.

conclusionsCommunity-based non-physician or self-screening for raised BP can detect raised BP, which may lead to the identification of new cases of hypertension. However, current evidence is insufficient to recommend specific approaches or settings. Studies with good follow-up of patients to definitive diagnosis are needed.

Indexed as

Diagnostic Self EvaluationAdultCommunity Health ServicesHumansHypertensionMass Screeningblood pressurecommunity health serviceshypertensionprimary carescreeningself-evaluationself-screening.

Identifiers

PMID25801901
PMCPMC4506785
OpenAlexW2041426495

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.