Trial reportHigh blood pressure & cardiovascular prevention : the official journal of the Italian Society of Hypertension2021
Pharmacist-Directed Self-Management of Blood Pressure Versus Conventional Management in Patients with Hypertension: A Randomized Control Trial.
Trial report in High blood pressure & cardiovascular prevention : the official journal of the Italian Society of Hypertension, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Role of Health Care Professionals in the Success of Blood Pressure Control Interventions in Patients With Hypertension: A Meta-Analysis.Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes · 2024Pooled it
- Pharmacists delivering hypertension care services: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionData has shown that pharmacist-directed health services play a key role in the treatment of hypertension.
aimWe aimed to perform this study to compare two methods of the pharmacist-directed home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) and the usual care.
methodsA total of 126 patients with uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) were randomized 1:1 into the pharmacist-directed HBPM and the usual care groups. In the intervention group, the patients were trained to measure their BPs and adjust their medications based on the designed protocol under the supervision of a clinical pharmacist. The primary endpoint of the study was the comparison of the BPs at baseline and months 1, 3, and 6.
resultsOne month after the allocation, the baseline systolic BP (SBP) (150.5 ± 13.1 vs. 149.7 ± 11.2 mm Hg; P = 0.71) and diastolic BP (DBP) (97.2 ± 9.8 vs. 93.6 ± 14.5; P = 0.11) significantly dropped to the control range equally in 85.2% of the patients in two groups (SBP: 128.8 ± 6.4 vs. 125.6 ± 7.1 mm Hg; P = 0.01 and DBP: 89.1 ± 6.2 vs. 81.5 ± 6.0 mm Hg; P = 0.01). This pattern continued during the study period (month 6; SBP: 115.6 ± 10.1vs. 116.1 ± 9.6 mm Hg; P = 0.78; DBP: 79.0 ± 5.0 vs. 77.2 ± 5.8 mm Hg; P = 0.08).
conclusionsIn this study, we did not observe any significant difference between the pharmacist-directed HBPM and usual care methods in decreasing BP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33765257What 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.