Trial reportBMJ open2023
Effectiveness of a targeted primary preventive intervention in a high-risk group identified using an efficiency score from data envelopment analysis: a randomised controlled trial of local residents in Japan.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development of a future prediabetes risk assessment model for individuals with normal glucose levels using data envelopment analysis.PNAS nexus · 2026Article
- Response: Commentary: The ME-BYO index: a development and validation project of a novel comprehensive health index.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Adapting power calculations to include a superiority margin: what are the implications?Biochemia medica · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine whether a minimal intervention based on the data envelopment analysis (DEA)-identified efficiency score effectively prevents hypertension.
designRandomised controlled trial.
settingTakahata town (Yamagata, Japan).
participantsResidents aged 40-74 years belonged to the information provision group for specific health guidance. Participants with a blood pressure ≥140/90 mm Hg, those taking antihypertensive medication, or those with a history of cardiac diseases were excluded. Participants were consecutively assigned based on their health check-up visit at a single centre from September 2019 to November 2020 and were followed up at the check-up in the following year, until 3 December 2021.
interventionA targeted approach using minimal intervention. Target was identified using DEA and 50% of participants with higher risk were targeted. The intervention was notifying the results of their risk of hypertension according to the efficiency score obtained by the DEA. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: A reduction in the proportion of participants who developed hypertension (≥140/90 mm Hg or taking antihypertensive medication).
resultsA total of 495 eligible participants were randomised, and follow-up data were available for 218 and 227 participants in the intervention and control groups, respectively. The risk difference for the primary outcome was 0.2% (95% CI -7.3 to 6.9) with 38/218 (17.4%) and 40/227 (17.6%) events in the intervention and control group, respectively (Pearson's χ
conclusionsMinimal intervention to a high-risk population stratified by DEA was not effective in reducing the onset of hypertension in 1 year. The efficiency score could predict the risk of hypertension. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: UMIN000037883.
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.