SynthesisJournal of hypertension2017
A comparison of blood pressure in community pharmacies with ambulatory, home and general practitioner office readings: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of hypertension, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- May Measurement Month 2017-2019: results from SwitzerlandEuropean heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 2022Article
- Reasons behind high rate of non-compliance to scheduled office visits in hypertensive patients: results from the Egyptian registry of specialized hypertension clinics.The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology · 2022Article
- High blood pressure readings on in-store machines: a qualitative study of the perspective of pharmacy staff.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2021Article
- Comparative analysis of visit and home blood pressure in a pilot trial on the effect of 18% sodium substitute salt on blood pressure.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Development and implementation of blood pressure screening and referral guidelines for German community pharmacists.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2020Article
- Blood pressure phenotype reproducibility in CKD outpatients: a clinical practice report.Internal and emergency medicine · 2020Article
- Measurement of Blood Pressure in Humans: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) · 2019Review
- Physician-pharmacist collaborative practice and telehealth may transform hypertension management.Journal of human hypertension · 2019Review
- Blood Pressure Assessment in Adults in Clinical Practice and Clinic-Based Research: JACC Scientific Expert Panel.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2019Review
- Hypertension referrals from community pharmacy to general practice: multivariate logistic regression analysis of 131 419 patients.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBlood pressure (BP) readings are traditionally taken in a clinic setting, with treatment recommendations based on these measurements. The clinical interpretation of BP readings taken in community pharmacies is currently unclear. This study aimed to systematically review all literature comparing community pharmacy BP (CPBP) readings with ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM), home BP monitoring and general practitioner clinic readings.
methodStudies were included if they compared CPBP with at least one other measurement modality used for the diagnosis or management of hypertension. Mean CPBP readings were compared with other measurement modalities and summarized using random-effects meta-analyses. The primary outcome was to compare CPBP with gold standard ABPM readings.
resultsSearches generated 3815 studies of which eight were included in the meta-analyses. The mean systolic CPBP-daytime ABPM difference was small [+1.6 mmHg (95% confidence interval -1.2 to 4.3) three studies, n = 319]. CPBP was significantly higher than 24-h ABPM [+7.8 mmHg (95% confidence interval 1.5-14.1) three studies n = 429]. Comparisons with general practitioner clinic readings (six studies, n = 2100) were inconclusive with significant heterogeneity between studies. CPBP and home BP monitoring readings (five studies, n = 1848) were nonsignificantly different. Diastolic comparisons mirrored systolic comparisons in all but the CPBP-daytime ABPM comparison, where CPBP was significantly higher.
conclusionCurrent evidence around the clinical interpretation of CPBP is inconclusive. Although this review suggests that adopting the 135/85 mmHg threshold for hypertension might be reasonable and potentially result in a higher sensitivity for detecting patients with truly raised BP in pharmacies, the impact of this lower threshold on increased referrals to general practice clinics must be considered.
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.