Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27025555›Full record

Observational studyThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2016

Accuracy of monitors used for blood pressure checks in English retail pharmacies: a cross-sectional observational study.

James Hodgkinson, Constantinos Koshiaris, Una Martin, Jonathan Mant, Carl Heneghan, Fd Richard Hobbs, Richard J McManus

Abstract readObservational Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Accuracy of blood-pressure monitors owned by patients with hypertension (ACCU-RATE study): a cross-sectional, observational study in central England.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2020
    Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
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

7 authors.

James HodgkinsonInstitute of Applied Health Research;
Constantinos KoshiarisNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, NIHR School for Primary Care Research, University of Oxford, Oxford.
Una MartinInstitute of Clinical Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham.
Jonathan MantPrimary Care Unit, NIHR School for Primary Care Research, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge.
Carl HeneghanNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, NIHR School for Primary Care Research, University of Oxford, Oxford.
Fd Richard HobbsNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, NIHR School for Primary Care Research, University of Oxford, Oxford.
Richard J McManusNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, NIHR School for Primary Care Research, University of Oxford, Oxford.

Funding

Department of Health CDF/01/017Department of Health IS-SPC-0514-10043Department of Health NIHR-RP-02-12-015Department of Health RP-PG-1209-10051
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFree blood pressure (BP) checks offered by community pharmacies provide a potentially useful opportunity to diagnose and/or manage hypertension, but the accuracy of the sphygmomanometers in use is currently unknown.

aimTo assess the accuracy of validated automatic BP monitors used for BP checks in a UK retail pharmacy chain. DESIGN AND

settingCross-sectional, observational study in 52 pharmacies from one chain in a range of locations (inner city, suburban, and rural) in central England.

methodMonitor accuracy was compared with a calibrated reference device (Omron PA-350), at 50 mmHg intervals across the range 0-300 mmHg (static pressure test), with a difference from the reference monitor of +/- 3 mmHg at any interval considered a failure. The results were analysed by usage rates and length of time in service.

resultsOf 61 BP monitors tested, eight (13%) monitors failed (that is, were >3 mmHg from reference), all of which underestimated BP. Monitor failure rate from the reference monitor of +/- 3 mmHg at any testing interval varied by length of time in use (2/38, 5% <18 months; 4/14, 29% >18 months, P = 0.038) and to some extent, but non-significantly, by usage rates (4/22, 18% in monitors used more than once daily; 2/33, 6% in those used less frequently, P = 0.204).

conclusionBP monitors within a pharmacy setting fail at similar rates to those in general practice. Annual calibration checks for blood pressure monitors are needed, even for new monitors, as these data indicate declining performance from 18 months onwards.

Indexed as

PharmaciesBlood PressureBlood Pressure DeterminationCalibrationCross-Sectional StudiesEnglandFemaleHumansHypertensionMaleReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificitySphygmomanometersblood pressure monitorscalibrationcommunity pharmacy serviceshypertensionprimary health care

Identifiers

PMID27025555
PMCPMC4838442

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.