ArticleBMJ open2018
Current practice of usual clinic blood pressure measurement in people with and without diabetes: a survey and prospective 'mystery shopper' study in UK primary care.
Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Self-monitoring of blood pressure following a stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TASMIN5S): a randomised controlled trial.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2024Trial
- Need to take action for hypertension: insights from primary care blood pressure practices in Greece.Journal of human hypertension · 2026Article
- Successful Management of Incidentally-Detected Subclavian Stenosis During Anesthetic Preparation for Spinal Surgery: A Case Report.International medical case reports journal · 2025Article
- Quality in screening and measuring blood pressure in China's primary health care: a national cross-sectional study using unannounced standardized patients.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2024Article
- Prevalence and factors associated with inter-arm systolic and diastolic blood pressure differences: results from the baseline Fasa Adult's Cohort Study (FACS).BMC public health · 2024Article
- Clinical relevance of double-arm blood pressure measurement and prevalence of clinically important inter-arm blood pressure differences in Indian primary care.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2022Article
- Preference of blood pressure measurement methods by primary care doctors in Hong Kong: a cross-sectional survey.BMC family practice · 2020Article
- Impact of Changes to National Hypertension Guidelines on Hypertension Management and Outcomes in the United Kingdom.Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) · 2020Article
- Evaluating the Effectiveness of an Additional Risk Minimization Measure to Reduce the Risk of Prescribing Mirabegron to Patients with Severe Uncontrolled Hypertension in Four European Countries.Clinical epidemiology · 2020Article
- Using out-of-office blood pressure measurements in established cardiovascular risk scores: a secondary analysis of data from two blood pressure monitoring studies.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesHypertension trials and epidemiological studies use multiple clinic blood pressure (BP) measurements at each visit. Repeat measurement is also recommended in international guidance; however, little is known about how BP is measured routinely. This is important for individual patient management and because routinely recorded readings form part of research databases. We aimed to determine the current practice of BP measurement during routine general practice appointments.
design(1) An online cross-sectional survey and (2) a prospective 'mystery shopper' study where patients agreed to report how BP was measured during their next appointment.
settingPrimary care.
participantsPatient charity/involvement group members completing an online survey between July 2015 and January 2016. 334 participants completed the prospective study (51.5% male, mean age=59.3 years) of which 279 (83.5%) had diabetes. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Proportion of patients having BP measured according to guidelines.
results217 participants with (183) and without diabetes (34) had their BP measured at their last appointment. BP was measured in line with UK guidance in 63.7% and 60.0% of participants with and without diabetes, respectively. Initial pressures were significantly higher in those who had their BP measured more than once compared with only once (p=0.016/0.089 systolic and p<0.001/p=0.022 diastolic, in patients with/without diabetes, respectively).
conclusionsCurrent practice of routine BP measurement in UK primary care is often concordant with guidelines for repeat measurement. Further studies are required to confirm findings in broader populations, to confirm when a third repeat reading is obtained routinely and to assess adherence to other aspects of BP measurement guidance.
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.