Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38166561›Full record

ArticleBMC primary care2024

Blood pressure measurements for diagnosing hypertension in primary care: room for improvement.

Vincent M I Voorbrood, Evelien I T de Schepper, Arthur M Bohnen, Marit F E Ruiterkamp, Peter R Rijnbeek, Patrick J E Bindels

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC primary care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 41% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Vincent M I VoorbroodDepartment of General Practice, Erasmus MC, P.O. Box 2040, Rotterdam, 3000CA, the Netherlands. v.voorbrood@erasmusmc.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-8636-2533
Evelien I T de SchepperDepartment of General Practice, Erasmus MC, P.O. Box 2040, Rotterdam, 3000CA, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1896-6343
Arthur M BohnenDepartment of General Practice, Erasmus MC, P.O. Box 2040, Rotterdam, 3000CA, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6645-9100
Marit F E RuiterkampDepartment of General Practice, Erasmus MC, P.O. Box 2040, Rotterdam, 3000CA, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6165-0582
Peter R RijnbeekDepartment of Medical Informatics, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0621-1979
Patrick J E BindelsDepartment of General Practice, Erasmus MC, P.O. Box 2040, Rotterdam, 3000CA, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5941-4820
Erasmus MC · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the adult population, about 50% have hypertension, a risk factor for cardiovascular disease and subsequent premature death. Little is known about the quality of the methods used to diagnose hypertension in primary care.

objectivesThe objective was to assess the frequency of use of recognized methods to establish a diagnosis of hypertension, and specifically for OBPM, whether three distinct measurements were taken, and how correctly the blood pressure levels were interpreted.

methodsA retrospective population-based cohort study using electronic medical records of patients aged between 40 and 70 years, who visited their general practitioner (GP) with a new-onset of hypertension in the years 2012, 2016, 2019, and 2020. A visual chart review of the electronic medical records was used to assess the methods employed to diagnose hypertension in a random sample of 500 patients. The blood pressure measurement method was considered complete if three or more valid office blood pressure measurements (OBPM) were performed, or home-based blood pressure measurements (HBPM), the office- based 30-minute method (OBP30), or 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure measurements (24 H-ABPM) were used.

resultsIn all study years, OBPM was the most frequently used method to diagnose new-onset hypertension in patients. The OBP-30 method was used in 0.4% (2012), 4.2% (2016), 10.6% (2019), and 9.8% (2020) of patients respectively, 24 H-ABPM in 16.0%, 22.2%, 17.2%, and 19.0% of patients and HBPM measurements in 5.4%, 8.4%, 7.6%, and 7.8% of patients, respectively. A diagnosis of hypertension based on only one or two office measurements occurred in 85.2% (2012), 87.9% (2016), 94.4% (2019), and 96.8% (2020) of all patients with OBPM. In cases of incomplete measurement and incorrect interpretation, medication was still started in 64% of cases in 2012, 56% (2016), 60% (2019), and 73% (2020).

conclusionOBPM is still the most often used method to diagnose hypertension in primary care. The diagnosis was often incomplete or misinterpreted using incorrect cut-off levels. A small improvement occurred between 2012 and 2016 but no further progress was seen in 2019 or 2020. If hypertension is inappropriately diagnosed, it may result in under treatment or in prolonged, unnecessary treatment of patients. There is room for improvement in the general practice setting.

Indexed as

Blood Pressure Monitoring, AmbulatoryHypertensionAdultAgedBlood PressureCohort StudiesHumansMiddle AgedPrimary Health CareRetrospective StudiesDiagnosis of HypertensionHypertensionPrimary care

Identifiers

PMID38166561
PMCPMC10759563
OpenAlexW4390505994

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.