ArticleGlobal heart2024
Pilot Study of Intelligent Office Blood Pressure Measurement Model in Shanghai, China, 2022.
Article in Global heart, 2024. 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.
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: An intelligent office blood pressure measurement (IOBPM) model for community-based hypertension management was piloted in Shanghai, China, to overcome the conventional blood pressure management (CBPM) model's deficiencies. Methods: We selected adults aged 35-89 years who were being treated and managed for hypertension in two community health centers for the IOBPM and CBPM models. The IOBPM model consisted of two or three consecutive blood pressure (BP) measurements using a pre-programmed and validated automatic device. The BP data for the CBPM model were obtained from the routine follow-up records of hypertensive patients and derived from the Shanghai Non-communicable Diseases Management Information System. Subjects in the IOBPM model were selected by a simple random sampling method, and propensity score matching was used to select a comparable control population from the CBPM model based on important covariables. The BP levels, end-digit preferences, frequency distribution, and BP control were compared between the two models. Results: We selected 2,909 patients for the IOBPM model and 5,744 for the CBPM model. The systolic BP in the CBPM model was 12.3 mmHg lower than in the IOBPM model. In the CBPM model, there were statistically significant end-digit preferences ( Conclusion: The IOBPM model appears to overcome the deficiencies of the CBPM model, leading to more accurate and reliable BP measurements.
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.