OBJECTIVE: In 1999, the first reporting year of the Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set, our organization noted a significant difference in the proportion of patients with controlled blood pressure (BP) when the target was changed from < 140/90 mm Hg to < or = 140/90 mm Hg. We compared these data with a second larger dataset to determine if these findings were an isolated or common phenomenon and to determine what factors influenced this difference. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Subjects were drug-treated hypertensive patients. Blood pressure measurements were taken from outpatient medical records. RESULTS: The percent of hypertensive patients with controlled BP levels was significantly greater (P <.001) when the cutoff of < or = 140/90 mm Hg was used rather than <140/90 mm Hg. When a single BP measurement was used to estimate control, the percent of patients with controlled hypertension increased 12.7% simply by changing the definition to include the level of systolic BP = 140 mm Hg or diastolic BP = 90. When multiple BP readings were used to estimate control, the difference was much less pronounced (2.7%). CONCLUSIONS: When evaluating the success of hypertension treatment, defining BP control as a BP of < or = 140 mm Hg systolic and < or = 90 diastolic mm Hg will result in significantly more people having controlled BP than when <140 mm Hg systolic and <90 mm Hg diastolic are used. This difference is most likely the result of end-digit preference. The use of multiple measures reduces this effect. Policy makers and guideline authors should consider these aspects when setting BP goals.
OBJECTIVE: In 1999, the first reporting year of the Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set, our organization noted a significant difference in the proportion of patients with controlled blood pressure (BP) when the target was changed from < 140/90 mm Hg to < or = 140/90 mm Hg. We compared these data with a second larger dataset to determine if these findings were an isolated or common phenomenon and to determine what factors influenced this difference. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Subjects were drug-treated hypertensivepatients. Blood pressure measurements were taken from outpatient medical records. RESULTS: The percent of hypertensivepatients with controlled BP levels was significantly greater (P <.001) when the cutoff of < or = 140/90 mm Hg was used rather than <140/90 mm Hg. When a single BP measurement was used to estimate control, the percent of patients with controlled hypertension increased 12.7% simply by changing the definition to include the level of systolic BP = 140 mm Hg or diastolic BP = 90. When multiple BP readings were used to estimate control, the difference was much less pronounced (2.7%). CONCLUSIONS: When evaluating the success of hypertension treatment, defining BP control as a BP of < or = 140 mm Hg systolic and < or = 90 diastolic mm Hg will result in significantly more people having controlled BP than when <140 mm Hg systolic and <90 mm Hg diastolic are used. This difference is most likely the result of end-digit preference. The use of multiple measures reduces this effect. Policy makers and guideline authors should consider these aspects when setting BP goals.
Authors: Jeffrey O Greenberg; Nirav Vakharia; Lara E Szent-Gyorgyi; Sonali P Desai; Alexander Turchin; John Forman; Joseph V Bonventre; Allen Kachalia Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-01-23 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Paul Muntner; Paula T Einhorn; William C Cushman; Paul K Whelton; Natalie A Bello; Paul E Drawz; Beverly B Green; Daniel W Jones; Stephen P Juraschek; Karen L Margolis; Edgar R Miller; Ann Marie Navar; Yechiam Ostchega; Michael K Rakotz; Bernard Rosner; Joseph E Schwartz; Daichi Shimbo; George S Stergiou; Raymond R Townsend; Jeff D Williamson; Jackson T Wright; Lawrence J Appel Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2019-01-29 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Beverly B Green; Andrea J Cook; James D Ralston; Paul A Fishman; Sheryl L Catz; James Carlson; David Carrell; Lynda Tyll; Eric B Larson; Robert S Thompson Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-06-25 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Cheryl E Goldstein; Paul L Hebert; Jane E Sisk; Mary Ann McLaughlin; Carol R Horowitz; Thomas G McGinn Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2007-11-27 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Paul A Fishman; Melissa L Anderson; Andrea J Cook; James D Ralston; Sheryl L Catz; Jim Carlson; Eric B Larson; Beverly B Green Journal: J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) Date: 2011-09-13 Impact factor: 3.738
Authors: William C Cushman; Charles E Ford; Paula T Einhorn; Jackson T Wright; Richard A Preston; Barry R Davis; Jan N Basile; Paul K Whelton; Robert J Weiss; Arnaud Bastien; Donald L Courtney; Bruce P Hamilton; Kent Kirchner; Gail T Louis; Tamrat M Retta; Donald G Vidt Journal: J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 3.738