Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39661402›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of hypertension2025

Factors Associated With Discussing High Blood Pressure Readings in Clinical Notes.

Cole G Chapman, Philip M Polgreen, Manish Suneja, Barry L Carter, Linnea A Polgreen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of hypertension, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Cole G ChapmanDepartment of Pharmacy Practice and Science, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.
Philip M PolgreenDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.
Manish SunejaDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.
Barry L CarterDepartment of Pharmacy Practice and Science, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.
Linnea A PolgreenDepartment of Pharmacy Practice and Science, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3926-5933

Funding

University of Iowa Institute for Clinical and Translational ScienceUM1TR004403 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF IOWA · PI Marlan R Hansen, Patricia Winokur · 2023 to 2026
$16.1M
A Pharmacist Intervention for Monitoring and Treating Hypertension Using Bidirectional TextingR33HL144880 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF IOWA · PI CARTER, BARRY L, POLGREEN, LINNEA ANN · 2020 to 2023
$2.6M
A Pharmacist Intervention for Monitoring and Treating Hypertension Using Bidirectional TextingR61HL144880 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF IOWA · PI CARTER, BARRY L, POLGREEN, LINNEA ANN · 2019 to 2019
$693k
National Center for Advancing Translational Science (#UL1TR004403 to PMPNCATS NIH HHS UM1 TR004403NHLBI NIH HHS (#HL144880 to LAPNHLBI NIH HHS R33 HL144880NHLBI NIH HHS R61 HL144880
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBlood pressure (BP) is routinely measured and recorded at healthcare visits, but high BP (HBP) measurements are not always discussed in clinical notes. Our objective was to identify patient- and visit-level factors associated with discussion of HBP measurements in clinical notes, among patients without prior diagnosis of hypertension.

methodsData from 2016 to 2022 for all patients with any BP record of 140/90 mmHg or greater were obtained from University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics electronic medical records. Patients with any prior hypertension diagnosis were excluded. We used a multi-level regression model to evaluate differences in the rates of discussing HBP. The model included varying intercepts for visit specialty and non-varying slopes and intercepts for patient- and visit-level features.

resultsThe final sample included 278,766 outpatient visits for 27,423 patients, of which 61,739 visits had HBP. Only 31% of visits with HBP had associated clinical notes with a discussion of HBP. Even in primary-care-related clinics, HBP measurements were discussed in only 70% of visits. Factors associated with decreased odds of HBP being discussed in clinical notes included fever (OR: 0.46; 95%CI: 0.24-0.86) or external injury or pain (0.84; 0.79-0.90), and a larger number of comorbidities (6+: 0.27; 0.22-0.32). Discussion of HBP in clinical notes was more likely among visits of patients with prior visits where HBP was discussed in clinical notes (12.36; 11.75-13.01).

conclusionsWe found that discussion of HBP is relatively uncommon. Increasing discussion of hypertension in clinical notes could decrease hypertension-related diagnostic inertia.

Indexed as

Blood PressureBlood Pressure DeterminationElectronic Health RecordsHypertensionPhysician-Patient RelationsAdultAgedFemaleHumansIowaMaleMiddle AgedOffice VisitsRetrospective Studiesblood pressurehypertensionnotesspecialty

Identifiers

PMID39661402
PMCPMC11911316

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.