ArticleBJGP open2022
Inter-arm blood pressure difference and cardiovascular risk estimation in primary care: a pilot study.
Article in BJGP open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Group-delivered interventions for lowering blood pressure in hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSystolic inter-arm differences (IAD) in blood pressure (BP) contribute independently to cardiovascular risk estimates. This can be used to refine predicted risk and guide personalised interventions.
aimTo model the effect of accounting for IAD in cardiovascular risk estimation in a primary care population free of pre-existing cardiovascular disease. DESIGN &
settingA cross-sectional analysis of people aged 40-75 years attending NHS Health Checks in one general practice in England.
methodSimultaneous bilateral BP measurements were made during health checks. QRISK2, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), and Framingham cardiovascular risk scores were calculated before and after adjustment for IAD using previously published hazard ratios. Reclassification across guideline-recommended intervention thresholds was analysed.
resultsData for 334 participants were analysed. Mean (standard deviation) QRISK2, ASCVD, and Framingham scores were 8.0 (6.9), 6.9 (6.5), and 10.7 (8.1), respectively, rising to 8.9 (7.7), 7.1 (6.7), and 11.2 (8.5) after adjustment for IAD. Thirteen (3.9%) participants were reclassified from below to above the 10% QRISK2 threshold, three (0.9%) for the ASCVD 10% threshold, and nine (2.7%) for the Framingham 15% threshold.
conclusionKnowledge of IAD can be used to refine cardiovascular risk estimates in primary care. By accounting for IAD, recommendations of interventions for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease can be personalised and treatment offered to those at greater than average risk. When assessing elevated clinic BP readings, both arms should be measured to allow fuller estimation of cardiovascular risk.
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.