Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39731065›Full record

Trial reportBMC cardiovascular disorders2024

Self-monitoring of blood pressure following a stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TASMIN5S): a randomised controlled trial.

R J McManus, A Smith, E Temple, L M Yu, J Allen, R Doogue, G A Ford, L Glynn, B Guthrie, P Hall and 15 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

25 authors.

R J McManusNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. richard.mcmanus@phc.ox.ac.uk.
A SmithNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
E TempleNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
L M YuNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
J AllenNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
R DoogueSchool of Medicine, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.
G A FordRadcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, and Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
L GlynnSchool of Medicine, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.
B GuthrieAdvanced Care Research Centre, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
P HallAdvanced Care Research Centre, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
L HintonNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
F D R HobbsNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
J MantDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
B McKinstryAdvanced Care Research Centre, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
G MeadAdvanced Care Research Centre, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
K MortonSchool of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
T RaiNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
C RicePublic contributor, Bristol, UK.
C RomanInstitute of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
A StoddartEdinburgh Clinical Trials Unit, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
L TarassenkoInstitute of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
C VelardoInstitute of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
M WilliamsPublic contributor, London, UK.
L YardleySchool of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
TASMIN5S investigators

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBlood pressure (BP) control following stroke is important but currently sub-optimal. This trial aimed to determine whether self-monitoring of hypertension with telemonitoring and a treatment escalation protocol, results in lower BP than usual care in people with previous stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA).

methodsUnblinded randomised controlled trial, comparing a BP telemonitoring-based intervention with control (usual care) for hypertension management in 12 primary care practices in England. People with previous stroke or TIA with clinic systolic BP 130-180 mmHg, taking ≤ 3 antihypertensive medications and on stable treatment for at least four weeks were randomised 1:1 using secure online system to intervention or control. The BP:Together intervention comprised self-monitoring of blood pressure with a digital behavioural intervention which supported telemonitoring of self-monitored BP with feedback to clinicians and patients regarding medication titration. The planned primary outcome was difference in clinic measured systolic BP 12 months from randomisation but was not available following early study termination due to withdrawal of funding during the COVID-19 pandemic. Instead, in addition to pre-randomised data, routinely recorded BP was extracted from electronic patient records both pre- and post-randomisation and presented descriptively only. An intention to treat approach was taken.

resultsFrom 650 postal invitations, 129 (20%) responded, of whom 95 people had been screened for eligibility prior to the pandemic (November 2019-March 2020) and 55 (58%) were randomised. Pre-randomisation routinely recorded mean BP was 145/78 mmHg in the control (n = 26) and 145/79 mmHg in the self-monitoring (n = 21) groups. Post-randomisation mean BP was 134/73 mmHg in the control (n = 19) and 130/75 mmHg in the self-monitoring (n = 25) groups. Participants randomised to self-monitoring used the intervention for ≥ 7 months in 25/27 (93%) of cases.

conclusionsRecruitment of people with stroke/TIA to a trial comparing a BP self-monitoring and digital behavioural intervention to usual care was feasible prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and the vast majority of those randomised to intervention used it while the trial was running. Routinely recorded blood pressure control improved in both groups. Digital interventions including self-monitoring are feasible for people with stroke/TIA and should be definitively evaluated in future trials.

trial registrationISRCTN57946500 06/09/2019 Prospective.

Indexed as

Antihypertensive AgentsBlood PressureBlood Pressure Monitoring, AmbulatoryCOVID-19HypertensionIschemic Attack, TransientStrokeAgedAged, 80 and overEnglandFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedTelemedicineTime FactorsAntihypertensive AgentsBlood pressureHypertensionSelf-monitoringStrokeTIA

Identifiers

PMID39731065
PMCPMC11673707

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.