ArticleBMC primary care2024
Quality of care in patients with hypertension: a retrospective cohort study of primary care routine data in Germany.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Acceptability of Hypertension Quality Indicators in Primary Care in South Africa: Exploratory Implementation Research.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Trends in Antihypertensive Medication Use and Blood Pressure Control in Adults Aged 66-79: Results of the National Examination Surveys DEGS1 and Study on Health of Older People Gesundheit 65.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2026Article
- Quality-of-care of Filipino patients with hypertension in primary care settings.BMC primary care · 2026Article
- Arterial Hypertension: The Incidence of Diagnosed Hypertension, 24-Hour Blood Pressure Measurement and Pharmacotherapy. An Analysis of Routine Health Insurance Data.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHypertension is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality if not properly managed. Primary care has a major impact on these outcomes if its strengths, such as continuity of care, are deployed wisely. The analysis aimed to evaluate the quality of care for newly diagnosed hypertension in routine primary care data.
methodsIn the retrospective cohort study, routine data (from 2016 to 2022) from eight primary care practices in Germany were exported in anonymized form directly from the electronic health record (EHR) systems and processed for this analysis. The analysis focused on five established quality indicators for the care of patients who have been recently diagnosed with hypertension.
resultsA total of 30,691 patients were treated in the participating practices, 2,507 of whom have recently been diagnosed with hypertension. Prior to the pandemic outbreak, 19% of hypertensive patients had blood pressure above 140/90 mmHg and 68% received drug therapy (n = 1,372). After the pandemic outbreak, the proportion of patients with measured blood pressure increased from 63 to 87%, while the other four indicators remained relatively stable. Up to 80% of the total variation of the quality indicators could be explained by individual practices.
conclusionFor the majority of patients, diagnostic procedures are not used to the extent recommended by guidelines. The analysis showed that quality indicators for outpatient care could be mapped onto the basis of routine data. The results could easily be reported to the practices in order to optimize the quality of care.
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.