↓ Skip to main content

Individual patient data meta-analysis of self-monitoring of blood pressure (BP-SMART): a protocol

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Open, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
132 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Individual patient data meta-analysis of self-monitoring of blood pressure (BP-SMART): a protocol
Published in
BMJ Open, September 2015
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008532
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katherine L Tucker, James P Sheppard, Richard Stevens, Hayden B Bosworth, Alfred Bove, Emma P Bray, Marshal Godwin, Beverly Green, Paul Hebert, F D Richard Hobbs, Ilkka Kantola, Sally Kerry, David J Magid, Jonathan Mant, Karen L Margolis, Brian McKinstry, Stefano Omboni, Olugbenga Ogedegbe, Gianfranco Parati, Nashat Qamar, Juha Varis, Willem Verberk, Bonnie J Wakefield, Richard J McManus

Abstract

Self-monitoring of blood pressure is effective in reducing blood pressure in hypertension. However previous meta-analyses have shown a considerable amount of heterogeneity between studies, only part of which can be accounted for by meta-regression. This may be due to differences in design, recruited populations, intervention components or results among patient subgroups. To further investigate these differences, an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis of self-monitoring of blood pressure will be performed. We will identify randomised trials that have compared patients with hypertension who are self-monitoring blood pressure with those who are not and invite trialists to provide IPD including clinic and/or ambulatory systolic and diastolic blood pressure at baseline and all follow-up points where both intervention and control groups were measured. Other data requested will include measurement methodology, length of follow-up, cointerventions, baseline demographic (age, gender) and psychosocial factors (deprivation, quality of life), setting, intensity of self-monitoring, self-monitored blood pressure, comorbidities, lifestyle factors (weight, smoking) and presence or not of antihypertensive treatment. Data on all available patients will be included in order to take an intention-to-treat approach. A two-stage procedure for IPD meta-analysis, stratified by trial and taking into account age, sex, diabetes and baseline systolic BP will be used. Exploratory subgroup analyses will further investigate non-linear relationships between the prespecified variables. Sensitivity analyses will assess the impact of trials which have and have not provided IPD. This study does not include identifiable data. Results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed publication and by international conference presentations. IPD analysis should help the understanding of which self-monitoring interventions for which patient groups are most effective in the control of blood pressure.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 132 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 131 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 17%
Student > Bachelor 17 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 11%
Researcher 12 9%
Student > Postgraduate 7 5%
Other 21 16%
Unknown 38 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 4%
Psychology 5 4%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Other 21 16%
Unknown 41 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 August 2019.
All research outputs
#6,754,036
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#10,984
of 25,588 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,496
of 281,201 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#139
of 300 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,588 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 281,201 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 300 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.