↓ Skip to main content

Prospective external validation of the Predicting Out-of-OFfice Blood Pressure (PROOF-BP) strategy for triaging ambulatory monitoring in the diagnosis and management of hypertension: observational…

Overview of attention for article published in British Medical Journal, June 2018
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 (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
150 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 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
Prospective external validation of the Predicting Out-of-OFfice Blood Pressure (PROOF-BP) strategy for triaging ambulatory monitoring in the diagnosis and management of hypertension: observational cohort study
Published in
British Medical Journal, June 2018
DOI 10.1136/bmj.k2478
Pubmed ID
Authors

James P Sheppard, Una Martin, Paramjit Gill, Richard Stevens, FD Richard Hobbs, Jonathan Mant, Marshall Godwin, Janet Hanley, Brian McKinstry, Martin Myers, David Nunan, Richard J McManus

Abstract

To prospectively validate the Predicting Out-of-OFfice Blood Pressure (PROOF-BP) algorithm to triage patients with suspected high blood pressure for ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) in routine clinical practice. Prospective observational cohort study. 10 primary care practices and one hospital in the UK. 887 consecutive patients aged 18 years or more referred for ABPM in routine clinical practice. All underwent ABPM and had the PROOF-BP applied. The main outcome was the proportion of participants whose hypertensive status was correctly classified using the triaging strategy compared with the reference standard of daytime ABPM. Secondary outcomes were the sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUROC) for detecting hypertension. The mean age of participants was 52.8 (16.2) years. The triaging strategy correctly classified hypertensive status in 801 of the 887 participants (90%, 95% confidence interval 88% to 92%) and had a sensitivity of 97% (95% confidence interval 96% to 98%) and specificity of 76% (95% confidence interval 71% to 81%) for hypertension. The AUROC was 0.86 (95% confidence interval 0.84 to 0.89). Use of triaging, rather than uniform referral for ABPM in routine practice, would have resulted in 435 patients (49%, 46% to 52%) being referred for ABPM and the remainder managed on the basis of their clinic measurements. Of these, 69 (8%, 6% to 10%) would have received treatment deemed unnecessary had they received ABPM. In a population of patients referred for ABPM, this new triaging approach accurately classified hypertensive status for most, with half the utilisation of ABPM compared with usual care. This triaging strategy can therefore be recommended for diagnosis or management of hypertension in patients where ABPM is being considered, particularly in settings with limited resources.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 150 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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 25%
Student > Master 3 11%
Professor 3 11%
Student > Postgraduate 3 11%
Other 3 11%
Other 9 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 57%
Unspecified 7 25%
Psychology 1 4%
Computer Science 1 4%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Other 2 7%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 118. 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 19 August 2019.
All research outputs
#135,733
of 13,855,981 outputs
Outputs from British Medical Journal
#2,162
of 45,119 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,801
of 274,029 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Medical Journal
#97
of 768 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,855,981 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 45,119 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 274,029 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 768 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.