Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28723587›Full record

Trial reportAcademic pediatrics

Evaluation of an Electronic Clinical Decision Support Tool for Incident Elevated BP in Adolescents.

Elyse Olshen Kharbanda, Stephen E Asche, Alan Sinaiko, James D Nordin, Heidi L Ekstrom, Patricia Fontaine, Steven P Dehmer, Nancy E Sherwood, Patrick J O'Connor

Abstract readPragmatic Clinical TrialRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Academic pediatrics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

9 authors.

Elyse Olshen KharbandaHealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis. Electronic address: elyse.o.kharbanda@healthpartners.com.
Stephen E AscheHealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis.
Alan SinaikoDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
James D NordinHealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis.
Heidi L EkstromHealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis.
Patricia FontaineHealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis.
Steven P DehmerHealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis.
Nancy E SherwoodHealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis; Division of Epidemiology and Community Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Patrick J O'ConnorHealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis.

Funding

EHR-Based Clinical Decision Support to Improve BP Management in AdolescentsR01HL115082 · NHLBI · HEALTHPARTNERS INSTITUTE · PI KHARBANDA, ELYSE OLSHEN · 2012 to 2016
$2.9M
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL115082
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate, among adolescents 10 to 17 years of age with an incident hypertensive blood pressure (BP; ≥95th percentile) at a primary care visit, whether TeenBP, a novel electronic health record-linked clinical decision support tool (CDS), improved recognition of elevated BP, and return for follow-up BP evaluation.

methodsWe conducted a pragmatic cluster randomized trial in 20 primary care clinics in a large Midwestern medical group. Ten clinics received the TeenBP CDS, including an alert to remeasure a hypertensive BP at that visit, an alert that a hypertensive BP should be repeated in 1 to 3 weeks, and patient-specific order sets. In the 10 usual care (UC) clinics, elevated BPs were displayed in red font in the electronic health record. For comparisons between CDS and UC we used generalized linear mixed models.

resultsThe study population included 607 CDS patients and 607 UC patients with an incident hypertensive BP. In adjusted analyses, at the index visit, CDS patients were more likely to have their hypertensive BP on the basis of ≥2 BP measurements (47.1% vs 27.6%; P = .007) and to have elevated BP (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision code 796.2) diagnosed (28.2% vs 4.2%; P < .001). In a multivariate model adjusted for age, sex, systolic BP percentile, and visit type, rates for repeat BP measurement within 30 days were 14.3% at TeenBP CDS clinics versus 10.6% at UC clinics (P = .07).

conclusionsThe TeenBP CDS intervention significantly increased repeat BP measurement at the index visit and recognition of a hypertensive BP. Rates for follow-up BP measurement at 30 days were low and did not differ between TeenBP and UC subjects.

Indexed as

Blood Pressure DeterminationDecision Support Systems, ClinicalElectronic Health RecordsPrimary Health CareAdolescentAftercareBlood PressureChildFemaleHumansHypertensionLinear ModelsMaleMultivariate Analysisadolescentsdecision supporthypertension

Identifiers

PMID28723587
PMCPMC5756693

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.