ArticleBJGP open2024
Liver function tests in patients with hypertension in primary care: a prospective cohort study.
Article in BJGP open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLiver function tests (LFTs) are frequently used to monitor patients with hypertension in UK primary care. Evidence is lacking on whether testing improves outcomes.
aimTo estimate the diagnostic accuracy of LFTs in patients with hypertension and determine downstream consequences of testing. DESIGN &
settingProspective study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD).
methodIn total, 30 000 patients with hypertension who had LFTs in 2015 were randomly selected from CPRD. The diagnostic accuracy measures for eight LFT analytes and an overall LFT panel were calculated against the reference standard of liver disease. Rates of consultations, blood tests, and referrals within 6 months following testing were measured.
resultsThe 1-year incidence of liver disease in patients with hypertension was 0.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.4% to 0.6%). Sensitivity and specificity of an LFT panel were modest: 61.3% (95% CI = 53.1% to 69.0%) and 73.8% (95% CI = 73.1% to 74.3%), respectively. The positive predictive value (PPV) of the eight individual LFT analytes were low ranging from 0.2% to 8.9%. Among patients who did not develop liver disease, mean number of consultations, referrals, and tests were higher in the 6 months following false-positives at 10.5, 0.7 and 29.8, respectively, compared with true-negatives: 8.6, 0.6, and 19.8.
conclusionPPVs of LFTs in primary care were low, with high rates of false-positive results and increased rates of subsequent consultations, referrals, and blood testing. Avoiding LFTs for routine monitoring could potentially reduce patients' anxiety, GP workload, and healthcare costs.
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.