ArticleHigh blood pressure & cardiovascular prevention : the official journal of the Italian Society of Hypertension2026
Pilot Randomised Controlled Trial Comparing Two Digital Solutions in the Management of Hypertensive Patients.
Article in High blood pressure & cardiovascular prevention : the official journal of the Italian Society of Hypertension, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionMobile health technologies may support hypertension management, yet comparative evidence between different digital platforms remains limited.
aimThis pilot randomized controlled trial aimed to compare the effectiveness, adherence, usability and patient satisfaction of two m-health solutions versus standard care on blood pressure (BP) control in patients with hypertension.
methodsIn this open-label, single-centre pilot trial, adults with essential hypertension were randomised (1:1:1) to standard care, Digital Solution 1 (DS1) or Digital Solution 2 (DS2). Both digital interventions enabled home BP and body weight monitoring via connected devices and smartphone applications. The primary endpoint was the difference in office BP change from baseline to 6 months among groups, analyzed using linear mixed models. Secondary endpoints included changes in body weight, adherence to home BP and weight monitoring, and patient-reported usability and satisfaction. Quality of life and physical activity were assessed as exploratory outcomes.
resultsA total of 65 patients were included and randomized whilst 49 completed the 6-month follow-up. No significant between-group differences at this time were observed in office systolic or diastolic BP trends (interaction p=0.44 and p=0.22, respectively). Adherence to home BP monitoring was higher with DS2 than DS1 (median adherent weeks 71% vs 11%, p=0.0002). Similarly, adherence to body weight monitoring was greater with DS2 (median 43% vs 11% of weeks, p=0.007). DS2 was also associated with higher usability and satisfaction scores. No significant differences were observed in body weight change, quality of life or physical activity.
conclusionIn this pilot study, m-health interventions did not improve office BP control compared with standard care. However, marked differences in adherence and usability between digital platforms were observed, underscoring the importance of system design and user experience in determining the effectiveness of digital strategies for hypertension management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42762427What 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.