ArticleSingapore medical journal2015
Are doctors assessing patients with hypertension appropriately at their initial presentation?
Article in Singapore medical journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Study protocol on Enhanced Primary Healthcare (EnPHC) interventions: a quasi-experimental controlled study on diabetes and hypertension management in primary healthcare clinics.Primary health care research & development · 2020Article
- Quality of hypertension management in public primary care clinics in Malaysia: An update.PloS one · 2020Article
- Hypertension among Outpatients at a General Hospital in South Angola: Prevalence, Awareness, Treatment, and Control.Clinical Medicine Insights. Cardiology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe aim of this study was to determine the extent to which primary care doctors assessed patients newly diagnosed with hypertension for the risk factors of cardiovascular disease (CVD) during the patients' first clinic visit for hypertension. The study also aimed to examine the trend of assessment for CVD risk factors over a 15-year period.
methodsThis retrospective study was conducted between January and May 2012. Data was extracted from the paper-based medical records of patients with hypertension using a 1:4 systematic random sampling method. Data collected included CVD risk factors and a history of target organ damage (TOD), which were identified during the patient's first visit to the primary care doctor for hypertension, as well as the results of the physical examinations and investigations performed during the same visit.
resultsA total of 1,060 medical records were reviewed. We found that assessment of CVD risk factors during the first clinic visit for hypertension was poor (5.4%-40.8%). Assessments for a history of TOD were found in only 5.8%-11.8% of the records, and documented physical examinations and investigations for the assessment of TOD and secondary hypertension ranged from 0.1%-63.3%. Over time, there was a decreasing trend in the percentage of documented physical examinations performed, but an increasing trend in the percentage of investigations ordered.
conclusionThere was poor assessment of the patients' CVD risk factors, secondary causes of hypertension and TOD at their first clinic visit for hypertension. The trends observed in the assessment suggest an over-reliance on investigations over clinical examinations.
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.