CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 591Blood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationPharmacy and Medical Practices

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 49 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effect of Home Blood Pressure Telemonitoring and Pharmacist Management on Blood Pressure Control: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial

Open access
Margolis, Karen L., Asche, Stephen E., Bergdall, Anna R., Dehmer, Steven P., Groen, Sarah E., Kadrmas, Holly M., Kerby, Tessa J., Klotzle, Krissa J., Maciosek, Michael V., Michels, Ryan D., O’Connor, Patrick J., Pritchard, Rachel A., Sekenski, Jaime L., Sperl-Hillen, JoAnn M., Trower, Nicole K.·2013·JAMA
DOI 10.1001/jama.2013.6549PMC PMC4311883
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Only about half of patients with high blood pressure (BP) in the United States have their BP controlled. Practical, robust, and sustainable models are needed to improve BP control in patients with uncontrolled hypertension. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether an intervention combining home BP telemonitoring with pharmacist case management improves BP control compared with usual care and to determine whether BP control is maintained after the intervention is stopped. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: A cluster randomized clinical trial of 450 adults with uncontrolled BP recruited from 14,692 patients with electronic medical records across 16 primary care clinics in an integrated health system in Minneapolis-St Paul, Minnesota, with 12 months of intervention and 6 months of postintervention follow-up. INTERVENTIONS: Eight clinics were randomized to provide usual care to patients (n = 222) and 8 clinics were randomized to provide a telemonitoring intervention (n = 228). Intervention patients received home BP telemonitors and transmitted BP data to pharmacists who adjusted antihypertensive therapy accordingly. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Control of systolic BP to less than 140 mm Hg and diastolic BP to less than 90 mm Hg (<130/80 mm Hg in patients with diabetes or chronic kidney disease) at 6 and 12 months. Secondary outcomes were change in BP, patient satisfaction, and BP control at 18 months (6 months after intervention stopped). RESULTS: At baseline, enrollees were 45% women, 82% white, mean (SD) age was 61.1 (12.0) years, and mean systolic BP was 148 mm Hg and diastolic BP was 85 mm Hg. Blood pressure was controlled at both 6 and 12 months in 57.2% (95% CI, 44.8% to 68.7%) of patients in the telemonitoring intervention group vs 30.0% (95% CI, 23.2% to 37.8%) of patients in the usual care group (P = .001). At 18 months (6 months of postintervention follow-up), BP was controlled in 71.8% (95% CI, 65.0% to 77.8%) of patients in the telemonitoring intervention group vs 57.1% (95% CI, 51.5% to 62.6%) of patients in the usual care group (P = .003). Compared with the usual care group, systolic BP decreased more from baseline among patients in the telemonitoring intervention group at 6 months (-10.7 mm Hg [95% CI, -14.3 to -7.3 mm Hg]; P<.001), at 12 months (-9.7 mm Hg [95% CI, -13.4 to -6.0 mm Hg]; P<.001), and at 18 months (-6.6 mm Hg [95% CI, -10.7 to -2.5 mm Hg]; P = .004). Compared with the usual care group, diastolic BP decreased more from baseline among patients in the telemonitoring intervention group at 6 months (-6.0 mm Hg [95% CI, -8.6 to -3.4 mm Hg]; P<.001), at 12 months (-5.1 mm Hg [95% CI, -7.4 to -2.8 mm Hg]; P<.001), and at 18 months (-3.0 mm Hg [95% CI, -6.3 to 0.3 mm Hg]; P = .07). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Home BP telemonitoring and pharmacist case management achieved better BP control compared with usual care during 12 months of intervention that persisted during 6 months of postintervention follow-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00781365.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2013.6549

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 49 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [9]Uhlig K Balk EM Patel K Ip S Kitsios GD Obadan NO Self-Measured Blood Pressure Monitoring: Comparative Effectiveness Rockville, MD Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US) 1 2012 22439158
  2. [40]Cappuccio FP Kerry SM Forbes L Donald A Blood pressure control by home monitoring: meta-analysis of randomised trials BMJ 2004 7 17 329 7458 145 15194600 PMC478224

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Margolis, K. L., Asche, S. E., Bergdall, A. R., Dehmer, S. P., Groen, S. E., Kadrmas, H. M., Kerby, T. J., Klotzle, K. J., Maciosek, M. V., Michels, R. D., O’Connor, P. J., Pritchard, R. A., Sekenski, J. L., Sperl-Hillen, J. M., & Trower, N. K.
Affiliations
HealthPartners (US)
Corresponding author
Margolis, Karen L.
ORCID
Venue
JAMA
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
2013-07-03
Volume
310
Issue
1
Pages
46
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
DOI
10.1001/jama.2013.6549
PMC
PMC4311883
OpenAlex
W2141795416
Cited by
591
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 44 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 45 · 2022: 51 · 2021: 56 · 2020: 49 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 49 · 2017: 56 · 2016: 35 · 2015: 37 · 2014: 38 · 2013: 11
FWCI
27.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL090965)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Pharmacy and Medical Practices
Keywords
hypertension, blood pressure control, home blood pressure telemonitoring, telemedicine, primary care, integrated health system, patient satisfaction, usual care comparison, chronic kidney disease, diabetes mellitus, electronic health records, United States, health care utilization
MeSH terms
Aged, Blood Pressure, Combined Modality Therapy, Diastole, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Hypertension, Male, Middle Aged, Pharmacists, Systole, Treatment Outcome, Patient Satisfaction, Telemedicine, Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory, Case Management

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review