Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29985459›Full record

Trial reportScientific reports2018

Nurse-led hypertension management was well accepted and non-inferior to physician consultation in a Chinese population: a randomized controlled trial.

Benjamin Hon Kei Yip, Eric Kam Pui Lee, Regina Wing Shan Sit, Carmen Wong, Xue Li, Eliza Lai Yi Wong, Martin Chi Sang Wong, Roger Yat Nork Chung, Vincent Chi Ho Chung, Kenny Kung and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialEquivalence Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Benjamin Hon Kei YipJC School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Eric Kam Pui LeeJC School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.ORCID 0000-0001-8267-9384
Regina Wing Shan SitJC School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.ORCID 0000-0002-4717-7773
Carmen WongJC School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Xue LiJC School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Eliza Lai Yi WongJC School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Martin Chi Sang WongJC School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Roger Yat Nork ChungJC School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Vincent Chi Ho ChungJC School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.ORCID 0000-0002-5947-4492
Kenny KungJC School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Samuel Yeung Shan WongJC School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China. yeungshanwong@cuhk.edu.hk.
Chinese University of Hong Kong · HK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective of this study is to evaluate if nurse-led repeated prescription (NRP) could ensure non-inferior disease control and would be accepted in Chinese patients with controlled hypertension (HT) in primary care clinics. A 12-month follow-up non-inferiority randomized trial was conducted. The non-inferior margins for systolic and diastolic blood pressure were 6.6 mmHg and 3.7 mmHg, respectively. Eligible patients (>18 years of age) with HT were randomized to the NRP and usual care (UC) groups for their regular clinical follow-up. We used ANCOVA to study the difference-of-difference of the blood pressures between the two groups. The levels of patient acceptance and experience of NRP were assessed by the observed opt-out rate and a qualitative analysis. We found no statistically significant differences in BP blood pressure between the NRP (N = 194) and UC (N = 199) groups. Only 4 of the participants in the NRP group opted out due to a preference for assessment by a physician. The interviewed participants (N = 12) felt positive about NRP, because they experienced more relaxed communication with the nurse and believed that the eligibility to join the NRP program was an indication of optimal BP control. We observed no adverse events. The findings show that NRP was well accepted and found to be non-inferior to physician consultation for HT management.

Indexed as

AgedAntihypertensive AgentsBlood PressureFemaleHumansHypertensionMaleMiddle AgedNursesPatient Acceptance of Health CarePrescriptionsPrimary Health CareReferral and ConsultationAntihypertensive Agents

Identifiers

PMID29985459
PMCPMC6037742
OpenAlexW2810823526

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.