ArticleFrontiers in medicine2022
Cost-accuracy and patient experience assessment of blood pressure monitoring methods to diagnose hypertension: A comparative effectiveness study.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Studies of the diagnosis of hypertension have emphasized long-term cost-effectiveness analysis, but the patient experience and costs of blood pressure monitoring methods at the diagnosis stage remain unclear. We studied four diagnostic methods: a new 1 h-automated office blood pressure (BP) monitoring, office BP measurement, home BP monitoring, and awake-ambulatory BP monitoring. Methods: We carried out a comparative effectiveness study of four methods of diagnosing hypertension in 500 participants with a clinical suspicion of hypertension from three primary healthcare (PHC) centers in Barcelona city (Spain). We evaluated the time required and the intrinsic and extrinsic costs of the four methods. The cost-accuracy ratio was calculated and differences between methods were assessed using ANOVA and Tukey's honestly significant difference (HSD) Results: Office BP measurement was the most expensive method (€156.82, 95% CI: 156.18-157.46) and 1 h-automated BP measurement the cheapest (€85.91, 95% CI: 85.59-86.23). 1 h-automated BP measurement had the best cost-accuracy ratio (€ 1.19) and office BP measurement the worst (€ 2.34). Home BP monitoring (8.01, 95% CI: 7.70-8.22), and 1 h-automated BP measurement (7.99, 95% CI: 7.80-8.18) had the greatest patient approval: 66.94% of participants would recommend 1 h-automated BP measurement as the first or second option. Conclusion: The relationship between the cost-accuracy ratio and the patient experience suggests physicians could use the new 1 h-automated BP measurement as the first option and awake-ambulatory BP monitoring in complicated cases and cease diagnosing hypertension using office BP measurement.
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.