Observational studyPloS one2018
Cross-sectional survey evaluating blood pressure control ACHIEVEment in hypertensive patients treated with multiple anti-hypertensive agents in Belgium and Luxembourg.
Observational study in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Unravelling the Belgian cascade of hypertension care and its determinants: insights from a cross-sectional analysis.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Article
- Cardiovascular drug interventions in the cardio-oncology clinic by a cardiology pharmacist: ICOP-Pharm study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study evaluates the actual blood pressure control rate and its estimation by general practitioners, the use of single-pill or free combinations, and the attitude towards single-pill combinations in primary care.
methodsCross-sectional observational survey in primary care between January 2015 and September 2016 in Belgium and Luxembourg. The participating general practitioners enrolled hypertensive patients taking at least 2 antihypertensive molecules (as fixed or free associations).
results742 general practitioners included a total of 8,006 patients, with a mean age of 66 ± 12 years. Systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure were respectively 141 ± 17 mmHg and 82 ± 10 mmHg (means ± SD). These patients had a blood pressure control rate of 45%, whereas it was estimated by general practitioners to be 60%. General practitioners with 11-25 years' experience performed better than general practitioners with 36-51 years' experience in the evaluation of blood pressure control. Combinations used were free in 39%, single-pill in 34% and mixed in 27% of the patients. Patients receiving single-pill combinations were younger than those treated with free combinations (63 ± 12 vs. 68 ± 12 years, p < 0.001), with fewer comorbidities (39 vs. 55%, p < 0.001). In patients treated solely with free pill associations, 66% of patient cases, general practitioners were willing to switch to a single-pill combination. The main reasons were improved adherence (76%) and better blood pressure control (64%).
conclusionIn patients requiring at least two antihypertensive drugs, blood pressure control rate remains low and is overestimated by general practitioners. Free combinations remain largely used although many general practitioners seem willing to shift to single-pill combinations. Treatment simplification could improve adherence and blood pressure control rate, which has been shown to lead to reduced morbidity and mortality.
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.