Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31755945›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2019

Consistency of Recommendations for Evaluation and Management of Hypertension.

Brian S Alper, Amy Price, Esther J van Zuuren, Zbys Fedorowicz, Allen F Shaughnessy, Peter Oettgen, Glyn Elwyn, Amir Qaseem, Ilkka Kunnamo, Urvi Gupta and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

14 authors.

Brian S AlperInnovations and Evidence-Based Medicine Development, EBSCO Health, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Missouri-Columbia School of Medicine, Ipswich, Massachusetts.
Amy PriceStanford Medicine X, Department of Anesthesiology, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Esther J van ZuurenDepartment of Dermatology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Zbys FedorowiczVeritas Health Sciences Consultancy, Huntingdon, United Kingdom.
Allen F ShaughnessyTufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts.
Peter OettgenDynaMed, EBSCO Health, Division of Cardiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Glyn ElwynDartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Hanover, New Hampshire.
Amir QaseemAmerican College of Physicians, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Ilkka KunnamoEvidence-Based Medicine Guidelines, Duodecim Medical Publications, Helsinki, Finland.
Urvi GuptaStanford Medicine X, Department of Anesthesiology, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Deborah D CarterMurdy Consultant Group, Newark, Ohio.
Michael MittelmanThe American Living Organ Donor Fund, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Carla Berg-NelsonSociety for Participatory Medicine, Tucson, Arizona.
Martin MayerInnovations and Evidence-Based Medicine, EBSCO Health, Triad Hospitalists, Cone Health, Greensboro, North Carolina.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Hypertension is very common, but guideline recommendations for hypertension have been controversial, are of increasing interest, and have profound implications. Objective: To systematically assess the consistency of recommendations regarding hypertension management across clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study of hypertension management recommendations included CPGs that had been published as of April 2018. Two point-of-care resources that provided graded recommendations were included for secondary analyses. Discrete and unambiguous specifications of the population, intervention, and comparison states were used to define a series of reference recommendations. Three raters reached consensus on coding the direction and strength of each recommendation made by each CPG. Three independent raters reached consensus on the importance of each reference recommendation. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were rates of consistency for direction and strength among CPGs. Sensitivity analyses testing the robustness were conducted by excluding recommendation statements that were described as insufficient evidence, excluding single recommendation sources, and stratifying by importance of recommendations. Results: The analysis included 8 CPGs with a total of 71 reference recommendations, 68 of which had clear recommendations from 2 or more CPGs. Across CPGs, 22 recommendations (32%) were consistent in direction and strength, 18 recommendations (27%) were consistent in direction but inconsistent in strength, and 28 recommendations (41%) were inconsistent in direction. The rate of consistency was lower in secondary analyses. When insufficient evidence ratings were excluded, there was still substantial inconsistency, and a leave-one-out sensitivity analysis suggested the inconsistency could not be attributed to any single recommendation source. Inconsistency in direction was more common for recommendations deemed to be of lower importance (11 of 20 recommendations [55%]), but 17 of 48 high-importance recommendations (35%) had inconsistency in direction. Conclusions and Relevance: Hypertension is a common chronic condition with widespread expectations surrounding guideline-based care, yet CPGs have a high rate of inconsistency. Further investigations should determine the reasons for inconsistency, the implications for recommendation development, and the role of synthesis across recommendations for optimal guidance of clinical care.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicAgedBlood PressureBlood Pressure DeterminationCross-Sectional StudiesHumansHypertensionMiddle AgedReference Values

Identifiers

PMID31755945
PMCPMC6902818

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.