Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34477290›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2021

Simplified hypertension screening approaches with low misclassification and high efficiency in the United States, Nepal, and India.

Olive Tang, Minghao Kou, Yifei Lu, Edgar R Miller, Tammy Brady, Cheryl Dennison-Himmelfarb, Arun More, Dinesh Neupane, Lawrence Appel, Kunihiro Matsushita

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

10 authors.

Olive TangJohns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Minghao KouJohns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3885-4103
Yifei LuUniversity of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8907-4898
Edgar R MillerJohns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Tammy BradyJohns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1315-6747
Cheryl Dennison-HimmelfarbJohns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Arun MoreRural Health Progress Trust, Osmanabad, India.
Dinesh NeupaneJohns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1501-2990
Lawrence AppelJohns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Kunihiro MatsushitaJohns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7179-718X

Funding

CARDIOVASCULAR EPIDEMIOLOGY INSTITUTIONAL TRAININGT32HL007024 · NHLBI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Elizabeth Selvin · 1985 to 2026
$17.5M
Medical Scientist Training ProgramT32GM136577 · NIGMS · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI ANDREA L COX · 2020 to 2026
$13.4M
Bill & Melinda Gates FoundationNHLBI NIH HHS T32 HL007024NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM136577
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Standard triplicate blood pressure (BP) measurements pose time barriers to hypertension screening, especially in resource-limited settings. We assessed the implications of simplified approaches using fewer measurements with adults (≥18 years old) not using anti-hypertensive medications from the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999-2016 (n = 30 614), and two datasets from May Measurement Month 2017-2018 (n = 14 795 for Nepal and n = 6 771 for India). We evaluated the proportion of misclassification of hypertension when employing the following simplified approaches: using only 1st BP, only 2nd BP, 2nd if 1st BP in a given range (otherwise using 1st), and average of 1st and 2nd BP. Hypertension was defined as average of 2nd and 3rd systolic BP ≥140 and/or diastolic BP ≥90 mm Hg. Using only the 1st BP, the proportion of missed hypertension ranged from 8.2%-12.1% and overidentified hypertension from 4.3%-9.1%. Using only 2nd BP reduced the misclassification considerably (corresponding estimates, 4.9%-6.4% for missed hypertension and 2.0%-4.4% for overidentified hypertension) but needed 2nd BP in all participants. Using 2nd BP if 1st BP ≥130/80 demonstrated similar estimates of missed hypertension (3.8%-8.1%) and overidentified hypertension (2.0%-3.9%), but only required a 2nd BP in 33.8%-59.8% of participants. In conclusion, a simplified approach utilizing 1st BP supplemented by 2nd BP in some individuals has low misclassification rates and requires approximately half of the total number of measurements compared to the standard approach, and thus can facilitate screening in resource-constrained settings.

Indexed as

HypertensionAdolescentAdultBlood PressureHumansIndiaNepalNutrition SurveysUnited Statesblood pressureblood pressure measurement/monitoringclassificationhigh blood pressurehypertension

Identifiers

PMID34477290
PMCPMC8678738

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.