IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pmed00/1002389.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Self-monitoring of blood pressure in hypertension: A systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Katherine L Tucker
  • James P Sheppard
  • Richard Stevens
  • Hayden B Bosworth
  • Alfred Bove
  • Emma P Bray
  • Kenneth Earle
  • Johnson George
  • Marshall Godwin
  • Beverly B Green
  • Paul Hebert
  • F D Richard Hobbs
  • Ilkka Kantola
  • Sally M Kerry
  • Alfonso Leiva
  • David J Magid
  • Jonathan Mant
  • Karen L Margolis
  • Brian McKinstry
  • Mary Ann McLaughlin
  • Stefano Omboni
  • Olugbenga Ogedegbe
  • Gianfranco Parati
  • Nashat Qamar
  • Bahman P Tabaei
  • Juha Varis
  • Willem J Verberk
  • Bonnie J Wakefield
  • Richard J McManus

Abstract

Background: Self-monitoring of blood pressure (BP) appears to reduce BP in hypertension but important questions remain regarding effective implementation and which groups may benefit most. This individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis was performed to better understand the effectiveness of BP self-monitoring to lower BP and control hypertension. Methods and findings: Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomised trials comparing self-monitoring to no self-monitoring in hypertensive patients (June 2016). Two reviewers independently assessed articles for eligibility and the authors of eligible trials were approached requesting IPD. Of 2,846 articles in the initial search, 36 were eligible. IPD were provided from 25 trials, including 1 unpublished study. Data for the primary outcomes—change in mean clinic or ambulatory BP and proportion controlled below target at 12 months—were available from 15/19 possible studies (7,138/8,292 [86%] of randomised participants). Overall, self-monitoring was associated with reduced clinic systolic blood pressure (sBP) compared to usual care at 12 months (−3.2 mmHg, [95% CI −4.9, −1.6 mmHg]). However, this effect was strongly influenced by the intensity of co-intervention ranging from no effect with self-monitoring alone (−1.0 mmHg [−3.3, 1.2]), to a 6.1 mmHg (−9.0, −3.2) reduction when monitoring was combined with intensive support. Self-monitoring was most effective in those with fewer antihypertensive medications and higher baseline sBP up to 170 mmHg. No differences in efficacy were seen by sex or by most comorbidities. Ambulatory BP data at 12 months were available from 4 trials (1,478 patients), which assessed self-monitoring with little or no co-intervention. There was no association between self-monitoring and either lower clinic or ambulatory sBP in this group (clinic −0.2 mmHg [−2.2, 1.8]; ambulatory 1.1 mmHg [−0.3, 2.5]). Results for diastolic blood pressure (dBP) were similar. The main limitation of this work was that significant heterogeneity remained. This was at least in part due to different inclusion criteria, self-monitoring regimes, and target BPs in included studies. Conclusions: Self-monitoring alone is not associated with lower BP or better control, but in conjunction with co-interventions (including systematic medication titration by doctors, pharmacists, or patients; education; or lifestyle counselling) leads to clinically significant BP reduction which persists for at least 12 months. The implementation of self-monitoring in hypertension should be accompanied by such co-interventions. In an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized trials, Katherine Tucker and colleagues examine the evidence for the effectiveness of self-monitoring of blood pressure in hypertension.Background: Why was this study done?: What did the researchers do and find?: What do these findings mean?:

Suggested Citation

  • Katherine L Tucker & James P Sheppard & Richard Stevens & Hayden B Bosworth & Alfred Bove & Emma P Bray & Kenneth Earle & Johnson George & Marshall Godwin & Beverly B Green & Paul Hebert & F D Richard, 2017. "Self-monitoring of blood pressure in hypertension: A systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(9), pages 1-29, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1002389
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002389
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002389
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002389&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002389?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dimitris Bertsimas & Agni Orfanoudaki & Rory B. Weiner, 2020. "Personalized treatment for coronary artery disease patients: a machine learning approach," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 482-506, December.
    2. Takeshi Fujiwara & James P. Sheppard & Satoshi Hoshide & Kazuomi Kario & Richard J. McManus, 2023. "Medical Telemonitoring for the Management of Hypertension in Older Patients in Japan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-15, January.
    3. Sang-Hyun Park & Jong-Ho Shin & Joowoong Park & Woo-Seok Choi, 2021. "An Updated Meta-Analysis of Remote Blood Pressure Monitoring in Urban-Dwelling Patients with Hypertension," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(20), pages 1-37, October.
    4. Xiaowen Li & Tong Li & Jianying Chen & Yuanling Xie & Xia An & Yunhong Lv & Aihua Lin, 2019. "A WeChat-Based Self-Management Intervention for Community Middle-Aged and Elderly Adults with Hypertension in Guangzhou, China: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(21), pages 1-12, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1002389. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosmedicine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.