Zero end-digit preference in recorded blood pressure and its impact on classification of patients for pharmacologic management in primary care - PREDICT-CVD-6

British Journal of General Practice

Volumn 57, Issue 544, 2007, Pages 897-903

  Broad, Joanna ^a   Wells, Sue ^a   Marshall, Roger ^a   Jackson, Rod ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Blood pressure determination; Data quality; Decision support systems; Evidence based medicine; Practice guidelines; Professional practice; Risk assessment

Indexed keywords

ANTIHYPERTENSIVE AGENT;

ADULT; AGED; ANALYTICAL ERROR; ARTICLE; BLOOD PRESSURE MEASUREMENT; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE; CARDIOVASCULAR RISK; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIASTOLIC BLOOD PRESSURE; DRUG USE; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION; NEW ZEALAND; PATIENT CODING; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIMARY MEDICAL CARE; RISK ASSESSMENT; SCORING SYSTEM; SIMULATION; SYSTOLIC BLOOD PRESSURE;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; BLOOD PRESSURE; BLOOD PRESSURE DETERMINATION; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEW ZEALAND; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 35948991545     PISSN: 09601643     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3399/096016407782317964     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Wilcox J. Observer factors in the measurement of blood pressure. Nurs Res 1961;10: 4-17.
2. Alcocer L, Novoa G, Sotres D. Digit preferences observed in the measurement of blood pressure: repercussions on the success criteria in current treatment of hypertension. Am J Ther 1997; 4(9-10): 311-314.
3. New Zealand Guidelines Group. The assessment and management of cardiovascular risk. Wellington: New Zealand Guidelines Group, 2003.
4. O'Brien E, Asmar R, Beilin L, et al. European Society of Hypertension recommendations for conventional, ambulatory and home blood pressure measurement. J Hypertens 2003; 21(5): 821-848.
5. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Hypertension: management of hypertension in adults in primary care. A partial update of NICE clinical guideline 18. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2006. www.nice.org.uk (accessed 7 Aug 2007).
6. O'Brien E, Asmar R, Beilin L, et al. Practice guidelines of the European Society of Hypertension for clinic, ambulatory and self blood pressure measurement. J Hypertens 2005; 23(4): 697-701.
7. Anderson KM, Odell PM, Wilson PW, Kannel WB. Cardiovascular disease risk profiles. Am Heart J 1991; 121(1 Pt 2): 293-298.
8. Pocock SJ, McCormack V, Gueyffier F, et al. A score for predicting risk of death from cardiovascular disease in adults with raised blood pressure, based on individual patient data from randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2001; 323(7304): 75-81.
9. Jackson R, Lawes CM, Bennett DA, et al. Treatment with drugs to lower blood pressure and blood cholesterol based on an individual's absolute cardiovascular risk. Lancet 2005; 365(9457): 434-441.
10. Williams B, Poulter NR, Brown MJ, et al. Guidelines for management of hypertension: report of the fourth working party of the British Hypertension Society, 2004-BHS IV. J Hum Hypertens 2004; 18(3): 139-185.
11. Wood D, Wray R, Poulter N, et al. JBS 2: Joint British Societies' guidelines on prevention of cardiovascular disease in clinical practice. Heart 2005; 91(Suppl 5): v1-52.
12. Wells S, Jackson R. Online management of cardiovascular risk in New Zealand with PREDICT™ - getting evidence to the 'moment of care'. Health Care Informatics Review Online, 2005. http://hcro.enigma.co.nz/website (accessed 7 Aug 2007).
13. McManus RJ, Mant J, Hull MR, Hobbs FD. Does changing from mercury to electronic blood pressure measurement influence recorded blood pressure? An observational study. Br J Gen Pract 2003; 53(497): 953-956.
14. Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR, et al. The seventh report of the Joint National Committee on prevention, detection, evaluation, and treatment of high blood pressure: the JNC 7 report. JAMA 2003; 289(19): 2560-2572.
15. Patterson HR. Sources of error in recording the blood pressure of patients with hypertension in general practice. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1984; 289(6459): 1661-1664.
16. Ali S, Rouse A. Practice audits: reliability of sphygmomanometers and blood pressure recording bias. J Hum Hypertens 2002; 16(5): 359-361.
17. Cranney M, Barton S, Walley T. The management of hypertension in the elderly by general practitioners in Merseyside: the rule of halves revisited. Br J Gen Pract 1998; 48(429): 1146-1150.
18. Keary L, Atkins N, O'Brien ET. Terminal digit preference and heaping in office blood pressure measurements. J Hum Hypertens 1998; 12: 787-788.
19. Thavarajah S, White WB, Mansoor GA. Terminal digit bias in a specialty hypertension faculty practice. J Hum Hypertens 2003; 17(12): 819-822.
20. Wen SW, Kramer MS, Hoey J, et al. Terminal digit preference, random error, and bias in routine clinical measurement of blood pressure. J Clin Epidemiol 1993; 46(10): 1187-1193.
21. Wingfield D, Freeman GK, Bulpitt CJ. General Practice Hypertension Study Group. Selective recording in blood pressure readings may increase subsequent mortality. QJM 2002; 95(9): 571-577.
22. Dyslipidaemia Advisory Group. 1996 National Heart Foundation clinical guidelines for the assessment and management of dyslipidaemia. Dyslipidaemia Advisory Group on behalf of the scientific committee of the National Heart Foundation of New Zealand. N Z Med J 1996; 109(1024): 224-232.
23. British Hypertension Society. Treating mild hypertension. Report of the British Hypertension Society working party. BMJ 1989; 298(6675): 694-698.