Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39117427›Full record

SynthesisThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2025

Group-delivered interventions for lowering blood pressure in hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Sinéad Tj McDonagh, Charlotte Reburn, Jane R Smith, Christopher E Clark

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

4 authors.

Sinéad Tj McDonaghExeter Collaboration for Academic Primary Care, Department of Health and Community Sciences, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter.ORCID 0000-0002-0283-3095
Charlotte ReburnExeter Collaboration for Academic Primary Care, Department of Health and Community Sciences, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter.ORCID 0000-0003-1226-3724
Jane R SmithExeter Collaboration for Academic Primary Care, Department of Health and Community Sciences, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter.ORCID 0000-0001-5658-9334
Christopher E ClarkExeter Collaboration for Academic Primary Care, Department of Health and Community Sciences, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter.ORCID 0000-0002-7526-3038

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHypertension is the leading modifiable cause of cardiovascular disease. Primary care management is predominantly individual and remains suboptimal. Interventions delivered to groups incorporate peer support and potentially offer efficient use of limited resources. Evidence for the benefits of group-delivered interventions in hypertension is unclear.

aimTo determine whether group-delivered hypertension interventions improve blood pressure (BP) outcomes compared to usual care (UC). DESIGN AND

settingSystematic review, meta-analyses, and meta-regression of randomised controlled trials in community, primary, or outpatient care settings.

methodMEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and CINAHL were searched from inception to 20 March 2024 for randomised controlled trials comparing group-delivered interventions to UC for adults with hypertension. Primary outcomes were changes in systolic and diastolic BP, achievement of study BP targets and medication adherence; quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Data were pooled according to intervention type using random effects meta-analyses; predictors of BP lowering were modelled with meta-regression.

resultsOverall, 5326 citations were retrieved; 59 intervention groups (IGs) from 54 studies (13 976 participants) were included. Compared to UC, systolic BP reduced by 7.2 mmHg (95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.7 to 9.6; 23 IGs) following exercise, 4.8 mmHg (95% CI = 3.2 to 6.4; 26 IGs) following lifestyle education, and 3.6 mmHg (95% CI = 0.3 to 6.9; seven IGs) following psychotherapeutic interventions. Corresponding reductions in diastolic BP were 3.9 mmHg (95% CI = 2.6 to 5.2; 21 IGs), 2.9 mmHg (95% CI = 1.8 to 3.9; 24 IGs), and 1.2 mmHg (95% CI = -1.9 to 4.3; seven IGs). Achievement of target BP and medication adherence were infrequently reported, with equivocal findings (relative risks 1.1, 95% CI = 1.0 to 1.2,

conclusionGroup-delivered interventions were effective at lowering BP for people with hypertension compared with UC; their feasibility and cost-effectiveness in primary care require further study.

Indexed as

Antihypertensive AgentsHypertensionBlood PressureHumansMedication AdherencePrimary Health CareRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAntihypertensive Agentsblood pressureexercisehealth educationhypertensionprimary health caresystematic review

Identifiers

PMID39117427
PMCPMC11961176

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.