↓ 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, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 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
Individual patient data meta-analysis of self-monitoring of blood pressure (BP-SMART): a protocol.
Published in
BMJ Open, January 2015
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008532
Pubmed ID
Authors

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

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 72 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 29%
Researcher 10 14%
Unspecified 9 12%
Student > Bachelor 9 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 11%
Other 16 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 33%
Unspecified 14 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 16%
Psychology 5 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 5%
Other 14 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 10 January 2018.
All research outputs
#6,673,346
of 13,219,992 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#6,292
of 11,147 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,994
of 337,048 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#259
of 412 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,219,992 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,147 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.0. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 337,048 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 412 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.