Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27334521›Full record

Trial reportJournal of human hypertension2017

Short-term telemedical home blood pressure monitoring does not improve blood pressure in uncomplicated hypertensive patients.

N Hoffmann-Petersen, T Lauritzen, J N Bech, E B Pedersen

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of human hypertension, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. An Updated Meta-Analysis of Remote Blood Pressure Monitoring in Urban-Dwelling Patients with Hypertension.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

N Hoffmann-PetersenUniversity Clinic of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Medical Research and Medicine, Holstebro Hospital and Aarhus University, Holstebro, Denmark.
T LauritzenDepartment of Public Health, Section of General Practice, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
J N BechUniversity Clinic of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Medical Research and Medicine, Holstebro Hospital and Aarhus University, Holstebro, Denmark.
E B PedersenUniversity Clinic of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Medical Research and Medicine, Holstebro Hospital and Aarhus University, Holstebro, Denmark.
Regional Hospital Holstebro · DKAarhus University · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Telemonitoring of home blood pressure measurements (TBPM) is a new and promising supplement to diagnosis, control and treatment of hypertension. We wanted to compare the outcome of antihypertensive treatment based on TBPM and conventional monitoring of blood pressure. Participants were recruited from a prevalence study among citizens aged 55-64 years in the municipality of Holstebro, Denmark. The study was a randomized, controlled, unblinded 3 months' trial. In the intervention group, antihypertensive treatment was based on TBPM with transmission of the measurements and subsequent communication by telephone or e-mail. In the control group, patients received usual care. Primary outcome was reduction in daytime ambulatory blood pressure measurements (ABPM) from baseline to 3 months' follow-up. Of 375 participants randomized, primary outcome data were available for 356 (95%). In both groups, daytime ABPM decreased significantly. The decrease in daytime ABPM in the intervention group was systolic/diastolic, -8±12/-4±7 mm Hg. This did not differ significantly from the control group's -8±13/-4±8 mm Hg. An equal number of participants obtained normal daytime ABPM, in the intervention group 17% (31/175) versus control 21% (37/181), P=0.34. We found that both TBPM patients and controls achieved a significant blood pressure reduction in this randomized, controlled, unblinded 3-month trial. We found no difference in blood pressure reduction or number of patients reaching blood pressure goals. Further information and education of some general practitioners seem to be relevant regarding blood pressure management and control of hypertension.

Indexed as

Blood Pressure Monitoring, AmbulatoryHumansMiddle AgedTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID27334521
OpenAlexW2462696255

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.