Stacey Sheridan1, Michael Pignone, Katrina Donahue. 1. Department of Medicine, Division of General Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, 5039 Old Clinic Building, CB 7110, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA. ssherida@email.unc.edu
Abstract
CONTEXT: In 1996, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended screening adults for hypertension. Since that time, the published literature on hypertension has expanded rapidly, necessitating a new examination of the evidence supporting screening. OBJECTIVE: Update the 1996 evidence review on screening for hypertension. DATA SOURCES: The 1996 Guide to Clinical Preventive Services, recent systematic reviews, and focused searches of MEDLINE were used to identify new evidence relevant to detecting and treating hypertension. STUDY SELECTION: When a good quality, recent systematic review was available, it was used to summarize previous research; MEDLINE was searched only for more recent articles. Two authors reviewed abstracts (and full texts, if necessary) of potentially relevant articles to determine if they should be included. DATA EXTRACTION: One author extracted data from included studies into evidence tables. DATA SYNTHESIS: Hypertension can be effectively detected through office measurement of blood pressure. Treatment of elevated blood pressure in adults can reduce cardiovascular events. The magnitude of risk reduction depends on the degree of hypertension and the presence of other cardiovascular risk factors. Available studies have found no important adverse effects on psychological well-being and mixed effects on the absenteeism rates of adults who are screened and labeled as being hypertensive. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial indirect evidence supports the effectiveness of screening adults to detect hypertension and treating them to reduce cardiovascular disease.
CONTEXT: In 1996, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended screening adults for hypertension. Since that time, the published literature on hypertension has expanded rapidly, necessitating a new examination of the evidence supporting screening. OBJECTIVE: Update the 1996 evidence review on screening for hypertension. DATA SOURCES: The 1996 Guide to Clinical Preventive Services, recent systematic reviews, and focused searches of MEDLINE were used to identify new evidence relevant to detecting and treating hypertension. STUDY SELECTION: When a good quality, recent systematic review was available, it was used to summarize previous research; MEDLINE was searched only for more recent articles. Two authors reviewed abstracts (and full texts, if necessary) of potentially relevant articles to determine if they should be included. DATA EXTRACTION: One author extracted data from included studies into evidence tables. DATA SYNTHESIS: Hypertension can be effectively detected through office measurement of blood pressure. Treatment of elevated blood pressure in adults can reduce cardiovascular events. The magnitude of risk reduction depends on the degree of hypertension and the presence of other cardiovascular risk factors. Available studies have found no important adverse effects on psychological well-being and mixed effects on the absenteeism rates of adults who are screened and labeled as being hypertensive. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial indirect evidence supports the effectiveness of screening adults to detect hypertension and treating them to reduce cardiovascular disease.
Authors: Patrice Lindsay; Sarah Connor Gorber; Michel Joffres; Richard Birtwhistle; Donald McKay; Lyne Cloutier Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Marc D Silverstein; Gerald Ogola; Quay Mercer; Jaclyn Fong; Edward Devol; Carl E Couch; David J Ballard Journal: Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent) Date: 2008-07
Authors: Isolde Sommer; Viktoria Titscher; Birgit Teufer; Irma Klerings; Barbara Nußbaumer-Streit; Monika Szelag; Lisa Affengruber; Gernot Wagner; Anna Glechner; Christina Kien; Agnes Ebenberger; Irmgard Schiller-Frühwirth; Thomas E Dorner; Andrea Siebenhofer; Bernd Haditsch; Herbert Bachler; Uwe Siebert; Gerald Gartlehner Journal: Wien Med Wochenschr Date: 2019-06-11
Authors: Stacey L Sheridan; Lindy B Draeger; Michael P Pignone; Philip D Sloane; Carmen Samuel-Hodge; Eric A Finkelstein; Ziya Gizlice; Maihan B Vu; Daniel P Gitterman; Shrikant I Bangdiwala; Katrina E Donahue; Kelly Evenson; Alice S Ammerman; Thomas C Keyserling Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2013-08-02 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Y Claire Wang; Alisa M Koval; Miyabi Nakamura; Jonathan D Newman; Joseph E Schwartz; Patricia W Stone Journal: Blood Press Monit Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 1.444
Authors: Brandon P Lucke-Wold; Kenneth DiPasquale; Aric F Logsdon; Linda Nguyen; A Noelle Lucke-Wold; Ryan C Turner; Jason D Huber; Charles L Rosen Journal: Am Med Stud Res J Date: 2014