ArticleSouth African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care2020
Variation between pragmatic and standardised blood pressure measurements in a Nigerian primary care clinic.
Article in South African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA significant difference in the blood pressure (BP) value of a patient taken by different health workers has been a subject of discussion among health workers. This study investigated the variations between usual-care and guideline-concordant BP measurement protocols and evaluated the implications of the disparities on diagnosis and treatment decision.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted among 206 participants. The usual-care and guideline-concordant BP readings taken from each participant by the regular clinic nurses and research-trained nurses, respectively, were obtained.
resultsMajority of the regular clinic nurses following the usual-care protocol used the left arm for BP measurement (59.7%). The systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) readings were higher on the right arm in 55.3% and 39.2% of the participants, respectively. The mean guideline-concordant BP was 7.67 mmHg higher than the mean usual-care for SBP (p ≤ 0.05) and 7.14 mmHg higher for DBP (p ≤ 0.05). The proportion of participants classified as having hypertension and uncontrolled BP was 11.8% and 15.0% lower when using usual-care BP compared to guideline-concordant BP, respectively. Fifty-one (24.8%) respondents were advised incorrect treatment based on usual-care BP measurement. The Bland-Altman plot showed that limits of agreement were wider than within the 10 mmHg clinical reference range and unacceptable for clinical purposes.
conclusionThe usual-care and guideline-concordant BP measurement protocols were significantly different, and the disparity had significant consequences on the diagnosis and treatment of hypertension. Health workers should strictly adhere to the guidelines on BP measurement to avoid mismanagement of patients.
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.