Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30679298›Full record

Observational studyBMJ open2019

Trends in end digit preference for blood pressure and associations with cardiovascular outcomes in Canadian and UK primary care: a retrospective observational study.

Michelle Greiver, Sumeet Kalia, Teja Voruganti, Babak Aliarzadeh, Rahim Moineddin, William Hinton, Martin Dawes, Frank Sullivan, Saddaf Syed, John Williams and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Terminal Digit Preference in Pulmonary Hypertension Endpoints.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Michelle GreiverDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, North York General Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8957-0285
Sumeet KaliaDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Teja VorugantiFaculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Babak AliarzadehDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Rahim MoineddinDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
William HintonDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK.
Martin DawesDepartment of Family Practice, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Frank SullivanMedical School, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK.
Saddaf SyedDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
John WilliamsDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK.
Simon de LusignanDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK.
University of Toronto · CAUniversity of Surrey · GBUniversity of British Columbia · CAUniversity of St Andrews · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo study systematic errors in recording blood pressure (BP) as measured by end digit preference (EDP); to determine associations between EDP, uptake of Automated Office BP (AOBP) machines and cardiovascular outcomes.

designRetrospective observational study using routinely collected electronic medical record data from 2006 to 2015 and a survey on year of AOBP acquisition in Toronto, Canada in 2017.

settingPrimary care practices in Canada and the UK.

participantsAdults aged 18 years or more.

main outcome measuresMean rates of EDP and change in rates. Rates of EDP following acquisition of an AOBP machine. Associations between site EDP levels and mean BP. Associations between site EDP levels and frequency of cardiovascular outcomes.

results707 227 patients in Canada and 1 558 471 patients in the UK were included. From 2006 to 2015, the mean rate of BP readings with both systolic and diastolic pressure ending in zero decreased from 26.6% to 15.4% in Canada and from 24.2% to 17.3% in the UK. Systolic BP readings ending in zero decreased from 41.8% to 32.5% in the 3 years following the purchase of an AOBP machine. Sites with high EDP had a mean systolic BP of 2.0 mm Hg in Canada, and 1.7 mm Hg in the UK, lower than sites with no or low EDP. Patients in sites with high levels of EDP had a higher frequency of stroke (standardised morbidity ratio (SMR) 1.15, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.17), myocardial infarction (SMR 1.16, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.19) and angina (SMR 1.25, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.28) than patients in sites with no or low EDP.

conclusionsAcquisition of an AOBP machine was associated with a decrease in EDP levels. Sites with higher rates of EDP had lower mean BPs and a higher frequency of adverse cardiovascular outcomes. The routine use of manual office-based BP measurement should be reconsidered.

Indexed as

Blood Pressure Monitoring, AmbulatoryOffice VisitsAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAngina PectorisAutomationBlood Pressure DeterminationCanadaCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansHypertensionLogistic ModelsMalehypertensioninformation technologyischaemic heart diseasequality in health care

Identifiers

PMID30679298
PMCPMC6347875
OpenAlexW2913308340

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.