Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41554579›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2026

Screening for hypertension in the inpatient environment (SHINE): a prospective diagnostic accuracy study among adult hospital patients.

Laura Catherine Armitage, Cristian Roman, Beth K Lawson, Adam Mahdi, Christopher Biggs, Louise Young, Holly Edmundson, Thomas Fanshawe, Lionel Tarassenko, Andrew Farmer and 1 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

11 authors.

Laura Catherine ArmitageNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK laura.armitage@phc.ox.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5009-4899
Cristian RomanInstitute of Biomedical Engineering, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9164-8659
Beth K LawsonNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-9524-9502
Adam MahdiInstitute of Biomedical Engineering, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Christopher BiggsNuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0348-5480
Louise YoungNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9094-1733
Holly EdmundsonNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1353-690X
Thomas FanshaweNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9928-8934
Lionel TarassenkoEngineering Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0118-1646
Andrew FarmerNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6170-4402
Peter J WatkinsonNuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1023-3927

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHypertension is the leading risk factor for death globally. Undiagnosed hypertension is common, but the incidence in hospitalised patients is unclear. There are calls for universal facility-based screening for hypertension among all attending patients. The hospital inpatient setting, where blood pressure (BP) is measured routinely and repeatedly, presents an ideal opportunity. However, international hypertension guidelines do not include inpatient BP thresholds for diagnostic or treatment purposes. We investigated the performance of current UK community BP thresholds for diagnosing hypertension in the hospital setting.

objectivesInvestigate the diagnostic performance of the current UK ambulatory BP diagnostic thresholds for systolic and diastolic hypertension in the hospital setting against the reference test of community-based ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM).

designA prospective diagnostic accuracy study.

settingHospital inpatients admitted to three UK centres were approached. Follow-up ABPM was delivered in the community.

participantsEligible patients were aged between 18 and 80 years, with no prior diagnosis of, or prescription for hypertension, and whose mean cumulative daytime BP was 120 mm Hg to 179 mm Hg systolic and ≤109 mm Hg diastolic from the 24th hour of their hospital admission.

interventionsParticipants received 24-hour ABPM 4-26 weeks post-discharge, as the reference test for hypertension, with UK diagnostic thresholds of an average daytime BP of ≥135 mm Hg systolic and ≥85 mm Hg diastolic applied. Participants found to be severely hypertensive at the ABPM fitting appointment were also considered reference-test positive but did not proceed with ABPM. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The diagnostic performance of a mean daytime in-hospital BP of ≥135 mm Hg systolic or ≥85 mm Hg diastolic (index test) for the prediction of hypertension diagnosed on ABPM (reference test) was assessed using sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) as primary outcome measures. Additionally, we explored the accuracy of a range of alternative in-hospital systolic and diastolic BP thresholds against the same reference test.

results351 participants were enrolled and 206 completed the study protocol. The average age of the 206 participants was 53 years, 55% were male, and 91 (44%) had daytime community hypertension on ABPM reference testing. Of 107 participants with raised in-hospital daytime BP, 59 (55%) had daytime community hypertension. When assessing the performance of the index test for detecting daytime community hypertension, sensitivity was 65% (59/91, 54% to 75%) and specificity was 58% (67/115, 49% to 67%). The PPV was 55% (59/107, 45% to 65%) and NPV was 68% (67/99, 58% to 77%), respectively. A further 45/206 participants (23%) had night-time community hypertension when assessed using European diagnostic thresholds for nocturnal hypertension (120 mm Hg systolic or 70 mm Hg diastolic), while 25/107 of those with raised in-hospital daytime BP (23%) had night-time community hypertension. When assessing the performance of the index test for detecting either day or night-time community hypertension, sensitivity was 62% (84/135, 53% to 70%) and specificity was 68% (48/71, 55% to 78%). The PPV was 79% (84/107, 70% to 86%) and NPV was 48% (48/99, 38% to 59%).

conclusionsUndiagnosed hypertension is common in hospitalised patients, particularly those with raised in-hospital BP. While in-hospital BP alone is an imperfect predictor and should not be used as a stand-alone diagnostic test, this could serve as a trigger for further assessment of BP in the community after discharge. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The study protocol was registered with the ISCTRN Registry (ISRCTN80586284).

Indexed as

Blood Pressure Monitoring, AmbulatoryHypertensionInpatientsMass ScreeningAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBlood PressureFemaleHospitalizationHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityBlood PressureHypertensionPREVENTIVE MEDICINEPUBLIC HEALTH

Identifiers

PMID41554579
PMCPMC12820866

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.