ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology1996
How informed general practitioners manage mild hypertension: a survey of readers of drug bulletins in 7 countries. International Society of Drug Bulletins (ISDB).
Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 1996. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Oversight: a retrospective study of biochemical monitoring in patients beginning antihypertensive drug treatment in primary care.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine whether general practitioners (GP) who are readers of independent drug bulletins can be used as an international epidemiological observatory of the criteria adopted by "well informed" doctors in various countries in the management of mild hypertension.
designQuestionnaire study of GPs' diagnostic criteria for mild hypertension, routine investigation and management of patients with this diagnosis.
participants206 GPs readers of independent drug bulletins in 7 countries, comprising 95 known systematic readers of a local bulletin and 111 randomly selected regular subscribers.
main outcome measuresResponse rate to the questionnaire. Diagnostic criteria, routine investigations, and treatment used for patients with mild hypertension.
resultsThe study required two months for planning and implementation. Four countries out of eleven had a response rate < or = 50% and were excluded; the frequency of responses from other countries was 69%. The average diastolic blood pressure (DBP) considered diagnostic of mild hypertension range from 94 mm Hg (lower threshold) to 106 (upper threshold). A minority (17%) of GPs routinely request the minimum recommended laboratory tests to assess patients. GPs routinely advise non-drug measures before starting a drug. Most would not start drug treatment in patients without other risk factors and a DBP below 100 mmHg. The top first choice drugs were diuretics and beta-adrenoceptor blockers. Half of the doctors were able to quote some published guide to the management of mild hypertension, and 18% cited a relevant trial. Attitudes in diagnosing and treating mild hypertension differed widely between GPs and countries.
conclusionsGP readers of drug bulletins can be used quickly and inexpensively to assess the extent to which recommended diagnostic and therapeutic practices are accepted by "well informed" doctors. The results suggest that attitudes in managing mild hypertension vary widely among GPs and countries and differ remarkably from the recommendations of published guidelines.
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.