ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2023
Associations between blood pressure control and clinical events suggestive of nutrition care documented in electronic health records of patients with hypertension.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quality-of-care of Filipino patients with hypertension in primary care settings.BMC primary care · 2026Article
- Inferring high-fat dietary patterns from electronic health record data using machine learning.JAMIA open · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClinical events suggestive of nutrition care found in electronic health records (EHRs) are rarely explored for their associations with hypertension outcomes.
methodsLongitudinal analysis using structured EHR data from primary care visits at a health system in the US from December 2017-December 2020 of adult patients with hypertension (n = 4,237) tested for associations between last visit blood pressure (BP) control (≤ 140 Systolic BP and ≤ 90 Diastolic BP) and ≥ 1 nutrition care clinical event operationalized as (overweight or obesity (BMI > 25 or 30, respectively) diagnoses, preventive care visits, or provision of patient education materials (PEM)). Descriptive statistics and longitudinal targeted maximum likelihood estimation (LTMLE) models were conducted to explore average treatment effects (ATE) of timing and dose response from these clinical events on blood pressure control overall and by race.
resultsThe median age was 62 years, 29% were male, 52% were Black, 25% were from rural areas and 50% had controlled BP at baseline. Annual documentation of overweight/obesity diagnoses ranged 3.0-7.8%, preventive care visits ranged 6.2-15.7%, and PEM with dietary and hypertension content were distributed to 8.5-28.8% patients. LTMLE models stratified by race showed differences in timing, dose, and type of nutrition care. Black patients who had nutrition care in Year 3 only compared to none had lower odds for BP control (ATE -0.23, 95% CI: -0.38,-0.08, p = 0.003), preventive visits in the last 2 years high higher odds for BP control (ATE 0.31, 95% CI: 0.07,0.54, p = 0.01), and early or late PEMs had lower odds for BP control (ATE -0.08, 95% CI: -0.15,-0.01, p = 0.03 and ATE -0.23, 95% CI: -0.41,-0.05, p = 0.01, respectively).
conclusionsIn this study, clinical events suggestive of nutrition care are significantly associated with BP control, but are infrequent and effects differ by type, timing, and patient race. Preventive visits appear to have the most effect; additional research should include examining clinical notes for evidence of nutrition care among different populations, which may uncover areas for improving nutrition care for patients with chronic disease.
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.