Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20732968›Full record

SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2010

Nurse led interventions to improve control of blood pressure in people with hypertension: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Christopher E Clark, Lindsay F P Smith, Rod S Taylor, John L Campbell

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 97 papers, 21 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
97citing papers in PubMed, 21 pooled it
9.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

97 citing papers in PubMed, 21 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 246 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Group-delivered interventions for lowering blood pressure in hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Guideline
  11. Pooled it
  12. Guideline
  13. Guideline
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Doctors record higher blood pressures than nurses: systematic review and meta-analysis.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2014
    Pooled it
  20. Guideline

37 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Christopher E ClarkPrimary Care Research Group, Institute of Health Services Research, Peninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry, St Luke's Campus, Exeter EX1 2LU. christopher.clark@pms.ac.uk
Lindsay F P Smith
Rod S Taylor
John L Campbell
Peninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo review trials of nurse led interventions for hypertension in primary care to clarify the evidence base, establish whether nurse prescribing is an important intervention, and identify areas requiring further study.

designSystematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Ovid Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, British Nursing Index, Cinahl, Embase, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials of nursing interventions for hypertension compared with usual care in adults. DATA EXTRACTION: Systolic and diastolic blood pressure, percentages reaching target blood pressure, and percentages taking antihypertensive drugs. Intervention effects were calculated as relative risks or weighted mean differences, as appropriate, and sensitivity analysis by study quality was undertaken. DATA SYNTHESIS: Compared with usual care, interventions that included a stepped treatment algorithm showed greater reductions in systolic blood pressure (weighted mean difference -8.2 mm Hg, 95% confidence interval -11.5 to -4.9), nurse prescribing showed greater reductions in blood pressure (systolic -8.9 mm Hg, -12.5 to -5.3 and diastolic -4.0 mm Hg, -5.3 to -2.7), telephone monitoring showed higher achievement of blood pressure targets (relative risk 1.24, 95% confidence interval 1.08 to 1.43), and community monitoring showed greater reductions in blood pressure (weighted mean difference, systolic -4.8 mm Hg, 95% confidence interval -7.0 to -2.7 and diastolic -3.5 mm Hg, -4.5 to -2.5).

conclusionsNurse led interventions for hypertension require an algorithm to structure care. Evidence was found of improved outcomes with nurse prescribers from non-UK healthcare settings. Good quality evidence from UK primary health care is insufficient to support widespread employment of nurses in the management of hypertension within such healthcare systems.

Indexed as

AdultAlgorithmsBiasBlood PressureCommunity Health NursingCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansHypertensionPractice Patterns, Nurses'Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID20732968
PMCPMC2926309
OpenAlexW2027925409

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.