Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Benediktsson, R.
Right arrow Articles by Padfield, P.L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Benediktsson, R.
Right arrow Articles by Padfield, P.L.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Q J Med 2004; 97: 15-20
© Association of Physicians 2004; all rights reserved.

Maximizing the benefit of treatment in mild hypertension:three simple steps to improve diagnostic accuracy

R. Benediktsson1 and P.L. Padfield2

From the 1Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Landspitali University Hospital, Reykjavik, Iceland, and 2Department of Medical Sciences, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK

Received 24 June 2003 and in revised form 31 October 2003

Background: Most patients only have three measurements of blood pressure before being labelled as hypertensive. This may lead to inaccurate classification, unnecessary treatment and dilution in treatment benefit for the population.

Aim: To examine the accuracy of current methods of diagnosing mild hypertension, and to explore ways to improving targeting of antihypertensive treatment without entailing lengthy observation.

Design: Re-analysis of published data.

Methods: We tested current diagnostic methods using the data for 3965 individuals who were followed for a year in the placebo arm of the MRC Mild Hypertension Trial. We calculated the proportion selected for treatment by current methods and the diagnostic accuracy, using average blood pressure beyond 6 months as representing ‘true’ long-term blood pressure. We examined the benefit of averaging blood pressures, of prolonging observation modestly and of estimating within-person blood pressure variability.

Results: Prolonging observation to 3 months selects a smaller (by about 12%) proportion of the sample for treatment, a proportion similar to that defined as ‘truly’ hypertensive. The diagnostic accuracy of current methods is poor, with up to 69% discrepancy in classification. This discrepancy was improved by up to 18% in absolute terms by prolonging observation to 3 months and using average blood pressures. Identifying those individuals with low within-person variability allows marked improvement in the prediction of ‘true’ hypertension.

Discussion: Although some inaccuracy in the diagnosis of hypertension is inevitable, observation for 3 months, averaging blood pressures and estimating within-person blood pressure variability can markedly improve upon current practice.

Address correspondence to Dr R. Benediktsson, Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Landspitali University Hospital, Fossvogur, 108 Reykjavik, Iceland. e-mail: rafn{at}efnaskipti.com


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.