ArticleClinical hypertension2020
Effect of home blood pressure monitoring for blood pressure control in hypertensive patients taking multiple antihypertensive medications including fimasartan (the FORTE study).
Article in Clinical hypertension, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03254914 (A Multi-center, Cluster-randomized, Prospective, Observational Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
A Multi-center, Cluster-randomized, Prospective, Observational Study
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of asthma patients in Inner Mongolia regarding differentiation between allergic rhinitis accompanied asthma and cough.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Knowledge and self-care practice among patients with hypertension in tertiary public hospitals of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: A multicenter cross-sectional study.International journal of cardiology. Cardiovascular risk and prevention · 2024Article
- Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of dietary management among patients with rheumatoid arthritis in China.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough recent hypertension guidelines recommend home blood pressure (HBP) monitoring, its effect in clinical practice is not well known. This study aimed to identify current HBP measurement status and obstacles and their efficacy on blood pressure (BP) control.
methodsSixty-three intervention and 61 control centers with 2483 (mean age: 58.0 years, 56.0% male) drug-naïve stage 2 hypertensive patients or patients requiring second anti-hypertensive medications were included. The intervention group was instructed to measure HBP twice a day for 7 days from the scheduled visit at 4, 8, and 12 weeks.
resultsAt the end of 12 weeks, 842 (68.7%) and 807 (64.15%) patients of the control and intervention groups, respectively, achieved a target BP. The odds ratio (OR) for improving BP control of HBP was 0.836 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.694-1.007). Among intervention group, clinic BP of the subgroup those measured their HBP at least once well controlled compared to subgroup those not measured their HBP at all (OR 1.602, 95% CI: 1.182-2.172). Only 19.17% (n = 476) had a home sphygmomanometer, and among those, 26.89% measured their BP at least once a week and 34.87% did not measure the BP at all. The obstacles of HBP measurement were lack of awareness of its importance (40.83%), lack of confidence on how to measure BP and maintain the measurement (37.04%), and difficulty in selecting an appropriate device (14.41%).
conclusionsHBP measurement alone did not improve BP control, but better compliance with the HBP measurement resulted in improved BP control.
trial registrationClinicalTrials, NCT03254914 , Registered 21 August 2017.
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.