Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 200

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Physician‐Pharmacist Comanagement of Hypertension: A Randomized, Comparative Trial

Borenstein, Jeff E., Graber, Geneen, Saltiel, Emmanuel, Wallace, Joel, Ryu, Seonyoung, Jackson, Archi, Deutsch, Stephen, Weingarten, Scott R.·2003·Pharmacotherapy: The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug Therapy

Abstract

Objective . To compare the effectiveness of an evidence‐based, systematic approach to hypertension care involving comanagement of patients by primary care physicians and clinical pharmacists versus usual care in reducing blood pressure in patients with uncontrolled hypertension. Methods . Patients in a staff model medical group with uncontrolled hypertension were randomized to either a usual care (UC) or a physician‐pharmacist comanagement (PPCM) group. All physicians in the study received both group and individual education and participated in the development of an evidence‐based hypertension treatment algorithm. Physicians were then given the names of their patients whose medical records documented elevated blood pressures (defined as systolic ≥ 140 mm Hg and/or diastolic ≥ 90 mm Hg for patients aged < 65 yrs, and systolic ≥ 160 mm Hg and/or diastolic ≥ 90 mm Hg for those aged ≥ 65 yrs). Patients randomized to the UC group were managed by primary care physicians alone. Those randomized to the PPCM group were comanaged by their primary care physician and a clinical pharmacist, who provided patient education, made treatment recommendations, and provided follow‐up. Blood pressure measurements, antihypertensive drugs, and visit costs/patient were obtained from medical records. Results . One hundred ninety‐seven patients with uncontrolled hypertension participated in the study. Both PPCM and UC groups experienced significant reductions in blood pressure (systolic −22 and −11 mm Hg, respectively, p<0.01; diastolic −7 and −8 mm Hg, respectively, p<0.01). The reduction in systolic blood pressure was greater in the PPCM group after adjusting for differences in baseline blood pressure between the groups (p<0.01). More patients achieved blood pressure control in the PPCM than in the UC group (60% vs 43%, p=0.02). Average provider visit costs/patient were higher in the UC than the PPCM group ($195 vs $160, p=0.02). Conclusions . An evidence‐based, systematic approach using physician‐pharmacist comanagement for patients with uncontrolled hypertension resulted in improved blood pressure control and reduced average visit costs/patient.

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 · 10.1592/phco.23.2.209.32096

Cites

3 of 3 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

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

Cited by

See all 200

Metadata

Authors
Borenstein, J. E., Graber, G., Saltiel, E., Wallace, J., Ryu, S., Jackson, A., Deutsch, S., & Weingarten, S. R.
Venue
Pharmacotherapy: The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug Therapy
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-02
Volume
23
Issue
2
Pages
209-216
ISSN
  • 0277-0008 (ISSN-L)
  • 1875-9114
OpenAlex
W2090215632
Cited by
200
References
3
FWCI
8.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Physician‐Pharmacist Comanagement of Hypertension: A Randomized, Comparative Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1592/phco.23.2.209.32096
The paper
Borenstein, J. E., Graber, G., Saltiel, E., Wallace, J., Ryu, S., Jackson, A., Deutsch, S., & Weingarten, S. R. (2003). Physician‐Pharmacist Comanagement of Hypertension: A Randomized, Comparative Trial. Pharmacotherapy: The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug Therapy. https://doi.org/10.1592/phco.23.2.209.32096

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.