↓ Skip to main content

Self-monitoring of blood pressure in hypertension: A systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Medicine, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
30 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
158 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
68 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
155 Mendeley
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
Self-monitoring of blood pressure in hypertension: A systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis
Published in
PLoS Medicine, September 2017
DOI 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002389
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katherine L. Tucker, James P. Sheppard, Richard Stevens, Hayden B. Bosworth, Alfred Bove, Emma P. Bray, Kenneth Earle, Johnson George, Marshall Godwin, Beverly B. Green, Paul Hebert, F. D. Richard Hobbs, Ilkka Kantola, Sally M. Kerry, Alfonso Leiva, David J. Magid, Jonathan Mant, Karen L. Margolis, Brian McKinstry, Mary Ann McLaughlin, Stefano Omboni, Olugbenga Ogedegbe, Gianfranco Parati, Nashat Qamar, Bahman P. Tabaei, Juha Varis, Willem J. Verberk, Bonnie J. Wakefield, Richard J. McManus

Abstract

Self-monitoring of blood pressure (BP) appears to reduce BP in hypertension but important questions remain regarding effective implementation and which groups may benefit most. This individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis was performed to better understand the effectiveness of BP self-monitoring to lower BP and control hypertension. Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomised trials comparing self-monitoring to no self-monitoring in hypertensive patients (June 2016). Two reviewers independently assessed articles for eligibility and the authors of eligible trials were approached requesting IPD. Of 2,846 articles in the initial search, 36 were eligible. IPD were provided from 25 trials, including 1 unpublished study. Data for the primary outcomes-change in mean clinic or ambulatory BP and proportion controlled below target at 12 months-were available from 15/19 possible studies (7,138/8,292 [86%] of randomised participants). Overall, self-monitoring was associated with reduced clinic systolic blood pressure (sBP) compared to usual care at 12 months (-3.2 mmHg, [95% CI -4.9, -1.6 mmHg]). However, this effect was strongly influenced by the intensity of co-intervention ranging from no effect with self-monitoring alone (-1.0 mmHg [-3.3, 1.2]), to a 6.1 mmHg (-9.0, -3.2) reduction when monitoring was combined with intensive support. Self-monitoring was most effective in those with fewer antihypertensive medications and higher baseline sBP up to 170 mmHg. No differences in efficacy were seen by sex or by most comorbidities. Ambulatory BP data at 12 months were available from 4 trials (1,478 patients), which assessed self-monitoring with little or no co-intervention. There was no association between self-monitoring and either lower clinic or ambulatory sBP in this group (clinic -0.2 mmHg [-2.2, 1.8]; ambulatory 1.1 mmHg [-0.3, 2.5]). Results for diastolic blood pressure (dBP) were similar. The main limitation of this work was that significant heterogeneity remained. This was at least in part due to different inclusion criteria, self-monitoring regimes, and target BPs in included studies. Self-monitoring alone is not associated with lower BP or better control, but in conjunction with co-interventions (including systematic medication titration by doctors, pharmacists, or patients; education; or lifestyle counselling) leads to clinically significant BP reduction which persists for at least 12 months. The implementation of self-monitoring in hypertension should be accompanied by such co-interventions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 158 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 155 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 155 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 32 21%
Student > Master 28 18%
Researcher 26 17%
Student > Bachelor 16 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 9%
Other 39 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 54 35%
Unspecified 45 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 10%
Social Sciences 9 6%
Computer Science 6 4%
Other 25 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 329. 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 11 November 2019.
All research outputs
#36,424
of 13,771,277 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Medicine
#107
of 3,150 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,705
of 270,847 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Medicine
#4
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,771,277 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,150 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 61.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 270,847 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.