Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33568079›Full record

Trial reportBMC medical research methodology2021

Examining the effectiveness of telemonitoring with routinely acquired blood pressure data in primary care: challenges in the statistical analysis.

Richard A Parker, Paul Padfield, Janet Hanley, Hilary Pinnock, John Kennedy, Andrew Stoddart, Vicky Hammersley, Aziz Sheikh, Brian McKinstry

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC medical research methodology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. 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

9 authors.

Richard A ParkerUsher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. richard.parker@ed.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-2658-5022
Paul PadfieldUsher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Janet HanleySchool of Health and Social Care. Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, UK.
Hilary PinnockUsher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
John KennedyEdinburgh Medical School, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Andrew StoddartUsher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Vicky HammersleyUsher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Aziz SheikhUsher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Brian McKinstryUsher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

Funding

British Heart FoundationChief Scientist Office, Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorate CZH/4/1135
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundScale-up BP was a quasi-experimental implementation study, following a successful randomised controlled trial of the roll-out of telemonitoring in primary care across Lothian, Scotland. Our primary objective was to assess the effect of telemonitoring on blood pressure (BP) control using routinely collected data. Telemonitored systolic and diastolic BP were compared with surgery BP measurements from patients not using telemonitoring (comparator patients). The statistical analysis and interpretation of findings was challenging due to the broad range of biases potentially influencing the results, including differences in the frequency of readings, 'white coat effect', end digit preference, and missing data.

methodsFour different statistical methods were employed in order to minimise the impact of these biases on the comparison between telemonitoring and comparator groups. These methods were "standardisation with stratification", "standardisation with matching", "regression adjustment for propensity score" and "random coefficient modelling". The first three methods standardised the groups so that all participants provided exactly two measurements at baseline and 6-12 months follow-up prior to analysis. The fourth analysis used linear mixed modelling based on all available data.

resultsThe standardisation with stratification analysis showed a significantly lower systolic BP in telemonitoring patients at 6-12 months follow-up (-4.06, 95% CI -6.30 to -1.82, p < 0.001) for patients with systolic BP below 135 at baseline. For the standardisation with matching and regression adjustment for propensity score analyses, systolic BP was significantly lower overall (- 5.96, 95% CI -8.36 to - 3.55 , p < 0.001) and (- 3.73, 95% CI- 5.34 to - 2.13, p < 0.001) respectively, even after assuming that - 5 of the difference was due to 'white coat effect'. For the random coefficient modelling, the improvement in systolic BP was estimated to be -3.37 (95% CI -5.41 to -1.33 , p < 0.001) after 1 year.

conclusionsThe four analyses provide additional evidence for the effectiveness of telemonitoring in controlling BP in routine primary care. The random coefficient analysis is particularly recommended due to its ability to utilise all available data. However, adjusting for the complex array of biases was difficult. Researchers should appreciate the potential for bias in implementation studies and seek to acquire a detailed understanding of the study context in order to design appropriate analytical approaches.

Indexed as

HypertensionBlood PressureHumansPrimary Health CareResearch DesignScotlandBlood pressure controlEnd digit preferenceHypertensionImplementation studyQuasi-experimentalRoutine dataTelemonitoring

Identifiers

PMID33568079
PMCPMC7877114

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.