ArticleAmerican journal of hypertension2025
Factors Associated With Discussing High Blood Pressure Readings in Clinical Notes.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Testing Optical Character Recognition of Home Blood Pressure Measurements, a Randomized Trial.American journal of hypertension · 2026Trial
- Extracting Signs and Symptoms of Hypertensive Disorders in Pregnancy from Clinical Notes Using Natural Language Processing.Maternal and child health journal · 2026Observational
- Association of documented high blood pressure measurements with time to hypertension diagnosis.The American journal of medicine · 2026Article
- Delayed Treatment, Lasting Consequences: The Need for Early Hypertension Diagnosis and Management in Young Adults.American journal of hypertension · 2025Article
- Hypertension Is Too Important for Healthcare Professionals Alone to Try and Solve.American journal of hypertension · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
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
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.