ArticlePloS one2021
Estimating the gains of early detection of hypertension over the marginal patient.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- How well do obesity indices predict undiagnosed hypertension in the Persian cohort (Shahedieh) adults community population of all ages?Health science reports · 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
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study estimated the potential impact of early diagnosis programs on health outcomes in England. Specifically, if advising individuals to visit their family doctor due to a suspected case of mild hypertension would result in (i) an increase in the diagnosis and treatment of high blood pressure; (ii) an improved lifestyle reflected in objective measures such as the body-mass-index and blood pressure levels; (iii) a reduced probability of the onset of other cardiovascular diseases, such as diabetes. To address potential selection bias in screening, a feature of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing is exploited, motivating a regression discontinuity design. If respondents' blood pressure measurements are above a standard clinical threshold, they are advised to visit their family doctor to confirm hypertension. Two years after the protocol, there is evidence of an increase in diagnosis (5.7 pp, p-val = 0.06) and medication use (6 pp, p-val = 0.007) for treating the condition. However, four years after the protocol, the difference in diagnosis and medication disappeared (4 pp, p-val = 0.384; 3.4 pp, p-val = 0.261). Moreover, there are no differences on observed blood pressure levels (systolic 0.026 mmHg, p-val = 0.815; diastolic -0.336 mmHg, p-val = 0.765), or Body-Mass-Index ((0.771, p-val = 0.154)). There are also no differences on diagnosis of diabetes (1.7 pp, p-val = 0.343) or heart related conditions (3.6 pp, p-value = 0.161). In conclusion, the nudge produces an earlier diagnosis of around two years, but there are no perceivable gains in health outcomes after four years.
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.