Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41494777›Full record

ReviewThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2026

Evidence-based blood tests for monitoring adults with hypertension in primary care: rapid review, routine data analyses, and consensus study.

Martha M C Elwenspoek, Rachel O'Donnell, Catalina Lopez Manzano, Sarah Dawson, Lewis F Buss, Katie Charlwood, Christina Stokes, Francesco Palma, Alastair D Hay, Penny F Whiting and 1 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Adults with hypertension: recommendations for minimum standards rather than optimal monitoring?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Article
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

11 authors.

Martha M C ElwenspoekThe National Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration West (NIHR ARC West), University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK martha.elwenspoek@bristol.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-9824-9335
Rachel O'DonnellPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Catalina Lopez ManzanoPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Sarah DawsonThe National Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration West (NIHR ARC West), University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK.
Lewis F BussPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Katie CharlwoodPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Christina StokesPatient representative.
Francesco PalmaPatient representative.
Alastair D HayPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Penny F WhitingPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Jessica WatsonPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8177-6438

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSubstantial variation in testing rates in adults with hypertension across UK primary care suggest that patients are not receiving optimal monitoring.

aimTo develop a minimal set of evidence-based blood tests for adults with hypertension. DESIGN AND

settingThis was a rapid review, routine data analyses, and consensus study. It was set in primary care.

methodThis study examined the rationale and evidence for tests recommended by guidelines or used commonly in adults with hypertension using stepwise rapid evidence reviews. A consensus group, including clinicians and patients, voted to include or exclude each test in the testing panel based on the evidence. If there was no consensus (>80%), additional evidence was sought through rapid reviews or analyses of primary care records, which was subject to further voting.

resultsSixteen routinely ordered tests were identified. The study found consistent, good evidence that estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) to detect chronic kidney disease and glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) to detect diabetes is beneficial for patients. The study found no or inconsistent evidence of the benefit of routinely measuring lipids, electrolytes, haemoglobin, thyroid function, clotting biomarkers, calcium, ferritin, folate acid, or vitamin B12. Good evidence was found that there is no benefit in routinely monitoring liver function, inflammation markers, or brain natriuretic peptide.

conclusionA minimal set of evidence-based blood tests to monitor adults with hypertension was identified. This panel includes eGFR, HbA1c, potassium, and sodium. Implementing these recommendations could reduce harms associated with unwarranted variation in care. Further research is needed to clarify the role of tests with inconsistent evidence and determine the optimal frequency of testing.

Indexed as

HypertensionPrimary Health CareRenal Insufficiency, ChronicAdultBiomarkersConsensusEvidence-Based MedicineGlomerular Filtration RateGlycated HemoglobinHumansPractice Guidelines as TopicUnited KingdomBiomarkersGlycated Hemoglobinblood testschronic diseasesevidence-based medicinehypertensionprimary health care

Identifiers

PMID41494777
PMCPMC13531578

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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.