ArticleJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2017
The impact of an individualized risk-adjusted approach on hypertension treatment in primary care.
Article in Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The impact of an individualized risk-adjusted approach on hypertension treatment in primary care.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2017Article
- Medication use and falls: Applying Beers criteria to medication review in Parkinson's disease.SAGE open medicine · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Previous studies suggest that up to 60% of all patients with hypertension receive inappropriate treatment. Current 2013 European Society of Hypertension/European Society of Cardiology (ESH/ESC) guidelines recommend taking cardiovascular risk factors into account when assessing treatment for patients with hypertension. The authors hypothesize that this approach will reduce the proportion of patients receiving inappropriate treatment. In this cross-sectional study using electronic medical records of Swiss primary care patients, the authors estimate the proportion of patients receiving inappropriate treatment using two approaches: (1) based on a blood pressure threshold of 140/90 mm Hg; and (2) based on cardiovascular risk factors. A total of 22 434 patients with hypertension were identified. Based on these approaches, 72.7% and 44.6% of patients, respectively, qualified for drug treatment. In addition, 23.0% and 10.8% of patients, respectively, received inappropriate treatment. Application of the 2013 ESH/ESC guidelines reduced the proportion of patients receiving inappropriate treatment by 50%. This shows the major impact of risk adjustment and highlights the need for a patient-centered approach in hypertension treatment.
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.