Evidence map›Paper›PMID 8978111›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners1996

A general practice-based study examining the absolute risk of cardiovascular disease in treated hypertensive patients.

T P Fahey, T J Peters

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 1996. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 35% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Multifaceted support to improve preventive cardiovascular care: a nationwide, controlled trial in general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2003
    Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Markers of loss of control of hypertension.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2003
    Article
  6. Auditing the management of hypertension in British general practice: a critical literature review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 1998
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

T P FaheyDepartment of Social Medicine, University of Bristol.
T J Peters
University of Bristol · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhen managing hypertension, the assessment of the absolute risk of a cardiovascular' event is now advocated as the most accurate way in which the risks and benefits of anti-hypertensive therapy should be judged. Most studies that have examined control of hypertension have relied solely on the blood pressure level attained after treatment, with no measurement of the likely absolute risk in individual patients.

aimTo assess control of hypertension by quantifying the 10-year absolute risk of cardiovascular disease in patients treated by their general practitioners, and to assess which risk factors are associated with uncontrolled hypertension in this group of patients.

methodA cross-sectional study was made of patients on drug treatment for hypertension in 18 Oxfordshire general practices subscribing to the VAMP (value-added medical products) computer system. The absolute risk of suffering a cardiovascular event in the following 10 years was measured according to each individual's risk factor profile. Factors associated with uncontrolled hypertension were ascertained using multiple logistic regression analysis.

resultsOverall, 40.9% (37.6% to 44.1%) of the hypertensive population had an absolute risk exceeding 20% of having a cardiovascular event in the following 10 years. The distribution of risk factors varies throughout the population. A higher blood pressure reading was strongly associated with an increased likelihood of high absolute risk, but high blood pressure readings in individual patients did not necessarily equate to a high absolute risk. The factors independently associated with uncontrolled hypertension were age, sex, past history of stroke, ischaemic heart disease and transient ischaemic attack, a body mass index greater than 30, diabetes, and current smoking.

conclusionsAbsolute risk assessment maximizes the risk-benefit ratio in treated hypertensive patients. Individual control and management requires multifactorial assessment and management. Treatment of hypertension according to blood pressure reading alone is not a reliable way of reducing the absolute risk of cardiovascular disease.

Indexed as

AdultAgedCardiovascular DiseasesCross-Sectional StudiesFamily PracticeFemaleHumansHypertensionMaleMiddle AgedRisk AssessmentRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID8978111
PMCPMC1239819
OpenAlexW92703359

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.