Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30009553›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2018

Blood pressure control rates measured in specialty vs primary care practices within a large integrated health system.

Sarah J Billups, Joseph J Saseen, Joseph P Vande Griend, Lisa M Schilling

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Renal denervation in hypertension patients: Proceedings from an expert consensus roundtable cosponsored by SCAI and NKF.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2021
    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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sarah J BillupsSkaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado.ORCID 0000-0003-3735-5262
Joseph J SaseenSkaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado.
Joseph P Vande GriendSkaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado.
Lisa M SchillingSchool of Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado.
University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus · USUniversity of Colorado Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Blood pressure measurement is a diagnostic test and a key component of assessing and managing hypertension, a major contributor to cardiovascular risk. Based on real-world clinical observations within a large, university-based, accountable care organization, we sought to assess whether blood pressure control results varied by the assessment setting, primary care versus specialty. We studied the most recent outpatient measurement for patients with hypertension during the 2016 calendar year and categorized each as being performed in a primary care or specialty setting, and as being controlled (<140/90 mm Hg) or uncontrolled. Among the 86 512 patients identified, the 43 364 whose most recent blood pressure measurement was in a specialty setting were significantly less likely to be controlled compared to the 43 148 whose most recent measurement was in primary care (63% vs 68%, respectively, OR = 0.83 [0.80-0.85]). For the 27 955 patients who had measurements performed in both settings during the year, the control rates based upon their most recent specialty and primary care measurements were 63% and 71%, respectively (OR = 0.62, 0.60-0.65). For the subsets of patients whose measurements in each setting were within 30 or within seven days of each other, the odds of control in the specialty versus primary care setting were 0.63 (0.58-0.75) and 0.65 (0.57-0.75), respectively. Health systems should weigh the value of performing blood pressure measurement in specialty settings that do not manage this condition, taking into consideration the resources required to perform it and the potential negative consequences of inaccurate measurements.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overBlood Pressure DeterminationDelivery of Health Care, IntegratedFemaleHumansHypertensionMaleMiddle AgedPrimary Health CareRetrospective StudiesStudent Health Servicesblood pressuredelivery of health carehealth carehypertensionquality assurancequality improvement

Identifiers

PMID30009553
PMCPMC8031292
OpenAlexW2884317624

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.