Trial reportThe Canadian journal of cardiology2008
IMPPACT: Investigation of Medical Professionals and Patients Achieving Control Together.
Trial report in The Canadian journal of cardiology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Self-measurement of blood pressure at home using a cuff device for change in blood pressure levels: systematic review and meta-analysis.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2025Pooled it
- Clinical Decision Support Systems Using Home Blood Pressure Readings to Manage Patients With Hypertension: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Impact evaluation of a community-based intervention for prevention of cardiovascular diseases in the slums of Nairobi: the SCALE-UP study.Global health action · 2016Article
- Home blood pressure monitoring: primary role in hypertension management.Current hypertension reports · 2014Review
- Ambulatory or home measurement of blood pressure?Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine whether home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) led to physician-initiated medication titration and improved achievement of target BP levels compared with standard, office-based management.
methodsPhysicians were randomly assigned to a treatment group or a control group. Patients in the control group were monitored by their physician and were drug-adjusted according to the usual approach. In the treatment group, patients were given home BP monitors (UA-767P [A&D Medical/Lifesource, USA]), and drug dosing was adjusted according to HBPM readings and protocol. Long-acting diltiazem (240 mg/day) was added at baseline, which was adjusted as necessary (other medications were added if more than 360 mg/day of diltiazem was required). A final BP measurement was taken in the office after six weeks.
resultsNineteen physicians were randomly assigned to the office BP monitoring group and 34 were assigned to the HBPM group. Of the 270 subjects recruited, 97 were in the office BP monitoring group and 173 were in the HBPM group. From baseline to the final visit, there was a statistically significant time by group interaction with lower BP in the HBPM group (P=0.034 for both systolic BP and diastolic BP). BP fell from 159/91+/-11/10 mmHg at baseline in the HBPM group to 138/80+/-13/8 mmHg on the final visit, and from 160/88+/-14/10 mmHg to 141/78+/-10/9 mmHg in the control group.
conclusionsBP was lowered significantly in both groups, and to a statistically greater degree in the HBPM group. The Hawthorne effect might have led to altered care by the physicians with improvement in BP control in both groups.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.