ArticlePloS one2021
Return on investment of self-measured blood pressure is associated with its use in preventing false diagnoses, not monitoring hypertension.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Cost-Effectiveness of Routine Monitoring of Long-Term Conditions in Primary Care: Informing Decision Modelling with a Systematic Review in Hypertension, Type 2 Diabetes and Chronic Kidney Disease.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2024Pooled it
- Implementation of a Self-Measured Blood Pressure Pilot Program in an Academic Internal Medicine Practice.American journal of hypertension · 2026Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Recommendations From the Surgeon General's Call-to-Action to Control Hypertension.American journal of hypertension · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Previous research indicates that patient self-measured blood pressure (SMBP) is a cost-effective strategy for improving hypertension (HTN) diagnosis and control. However, it is unknown which specific uses of SMBP produce the most value. Our goal is to estimate, from an insurance perspective, the return-on-investment (ROI) and net present value associated with coverage of SMBP devices when used (a) only to diagnose HTN, (b) only to select and titrate medication, (c) only to monitor HTN treatment, or (d) as a bundle with all three uses combined. We employed national sample of claims data, Framingham risk predictions, and published sensitivity-specificity values of SMBP and clinic blood-pressure measurement to extend a previously-developed local decision-analytic simulation model. We then used the extended model to determine which uses of SMBP produce the most economic value when scaled to the U.S. adult population. We found that coverage of SMBP devices yielded positive ROIs for insurers in the short-run and at lifetime horizon when the three uses of SMBP were considered together. When each use was evaluated separately, positive returns were seen when SMBP was used for diagnosis or for medication selection and titration. However, returns were negative when SMBP was used exclusively to monitor HTN treatment. When scaled to the U.S. population, adoption of SMBP would prevent nearly 16.5 million false positive HTN diagnoses, thereby improving quality of care while saving insurance plans $254 per member. A strong economic case exists for insurers to cover the cost of SMBP devices, but it matters how devices are used.
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.