ArticleJournal of human hypertension2023
Variation in paediatric 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring interpretation by Canadian and UK physicians.
Article in Journal of human hypertension, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
11 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Twenty-four-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is widely accepted as a more accurate method for measurement of blood pressure (BP) compared to a single office-based measurement of BP. However, it is unclear how physicians interpret ABPM and make management decisions. This study's goal is to investigate variation in ABPM interpretation among paediatric nephrologists (Canada and UK) and paediatric cardiologists (Canada only) via an online survey. The survey content included baseline demographics, questions on the use and indications for ABPM, interpretation of results, and subsequent management decisions in various clinical scenarios. The survey was sent to 196 Canadian physicians, with 69 (35.2%) total responses. Thirty-five UK clinicians also completed the survey. Most respondents were >44 years old, were in practice for at least 11 years, and were university-based. There were substantial differences among clinicians in ABPM interpretation for isolated systolic, diastolic, and night-time hypertension. For example, only 53.1% of physicians would initiate or modify treatment in those with diastolic HTN in CKD. Further, even for the same abnormal ABPM parameter, the decision to start or alter treatment was influenced by the underlying medical condition. There is significant variation in clinical practice among physicians for interpretation and management of hypertension when using ABPM. Differences in guidelines among various jurisdictions, as well as knowledge gaps in the research on which guidelines are based, create ambiguity regarding ABPM interpretation and management decisions. A more protocolized approach and further insight into the reasoning behind the variation in physicians' interpretation may help to standardise practice.
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.