Search

Background Having a stroke or transient ischaemic attack increases the risk of a subsequent one, especially with high blood pressure (BP). Home‐based BP management can be effective at maintaining optimal BP. Objective To describe the optimization of a digital intervention for stroke patients and the value of participant diversity, using the person‐based approach (PBA) and integral patient and public involvement (PPI). Setting and participants Stroke patients recruited from primary care and community settings, and health‐care professionals in primary care, in England and Ireland. Design Three linked qualitative studies conducted iteratively to develop an intervention using the PBA, with integral PPI. Intervention The BP: Together intervention, adapted from existing BP self‐monitoring interventions, is delivered via mobile phone or web interface to support self‐monitoring of BP at home. It alerts patients and their clinicians when a change in antihypertensive medication is needed. Findings Feedback from a diverse range of participants identified potential barriers, which were addressed to improve the intervention accessibility, feasibility and persuasiveness. Easy‐to‐read materials were developed to improve usability for patients with aphasia and lower literacy. The importance of including family members who support patient care was also highlighted. Feedback messages regarding medication change were refined to ensure usefulness for patients and clinicians. Discussion Input from PPI alongside qualitative research with a diverse study sample allowed the creation of a simple and equitable BP management intervention for stroke patients. Patient involvement Two PPI co‐investigators contributed to design, conduct of study, data interpretation and manuscript preparation; community PPI sessions informed early planning. Study participants were stroke patients and family members.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and externally validate the STRAtifying Treatments In the multi-morbid Frail elderlY (STRATIFY)-Falls clinical prediction model to identify the risk of hospital admission or death from a fall in patients with an indication for antihypertensive treatment. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Primary care data from electronic health records contained within the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 40 years or older with at least one blood pressure measurement between 130 mm Hg and 179 mm Hg. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: First serious fall, defined as hospital admission or death with a primary diagnosis of a fall within 10 years of the index date (12 months after cohort entry). Model development was conducted using a Fine-Gray approach in data from CPRD GOLD, accounting for the competing risk of death from other causes, with subsequent recalibration at one, five, and 10 years using pseudo values. External validation was conducted using data from CPRD Aurum, with performance assessed through calibration curves and the observed to expected ratio, C statistic, and D statistic, pooled across general practices, and clinical utility using decision curve analysis at thresholds around 10%. RESULTS: Analysis included 1 772 600 patients (experiencing 62 691 serious falls) from CPRD GOLD used in model development, and 3 805 366 (experiencing 206 956 serious falls) from CPRD Aurum in the external validation. The final model consisted of 24 predictors, including age, sex, ethnicity, alcohol consumption, living in an area of high social deprivation, a history of falls, multiple sclerosis, and prescriptions of antihypertensives, antidepressants, hypnotics, and anxiolytics. Upon external validation, the recalibrated model showed good discrimination, with pooled C statistics of 0.833 (95% confidence interval 0.831 to 0.835) and 0.843 (0.841 to 0.844) at five and 10 years, respectively. Original model calibration was poor on visual inspection and although this was improved with recalibration, under-prediction of risk remained (observed to expected ratio at 10 years 1.839, 95% confidence interval 1.811 to 1.865). Nevertheless, decision curve analysis suggests potential clinical utility, with net benefit larger than other strategies. CONCLUSIONS: This prediction model uses commonly recorded clinical characteristics and distinguishes well between patients at high and low risk of falls in the next 1-10 years. Although miscalibration was evident on external validation, the model still had potential clinical utility around risk thresholds of 10% and so could be useful in routine clinical practice to help identify those at high risk of falls who might benefit from closer monitoring or early intervention to prevent future falls. Further studies are needed to explore the appropriate thresholds that maximise the model's clinical utility and cost effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Deprescribing of antihypertensive medications for older patients with normal blood pressure is recommended by some clinical guidelines, where the potential harms of treatment may outweigh the benefits. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of this approach. METHODS: A Markov patient-level simulation was undertaken to model the effect of withdrawing one antihypertensive compared with usual care, over a life-time horizon. Model population characteristics were estimated using data from the OPTiMISE antihypertensive deprescribing trial, and the effects of blood pressure changes on outcomes were derived from the literature. Health-related quality of life was modeled in Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) and presented as costs per QALY gained. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, medication reduction resulted in lower costs than usual care (mean difference £185), but also lower QALYs (mean difference 0.062) per patient over a life-time horizon. Usual care was cost-effective at £2975 per QALY gained (more costly, but more effective). Medication reduction resulted more heart failure and stroke/TIA events but fewer adverse events. Medication reduction may be the preferred strategy at a willingness-to-pay of £20 000/QALY, where the baseline absolute risk of serious drug-related adverse events was ≥7.7% a year (compared with 1.7% in the base-case). CONCLUSIONS: Although there was uncertainty around many of the assumptions underpinning this model, these findings suggest that antihypertensive medication reduction should not be attempted in many older patients with controlled systolic blood pressure. For populations at high risk of adverse effects, deprescribing may be beneficial, but a targeted approach would be required in routine practice.

ObjectiveThis systematic review examines the qualitative literature on women���s experiences of self-managing chronic conditions in pregnancy.DesignSystematic review of qualitative literature. Searches were performed in PubMed and CINAHL from inception to February 2021. Critical interpretive synthesis informed the coding framework and the analysis of the data. The Burden of Treatment theory emerged during the initial analysis as having the most synergy with the included literature, themes were refined to consider key concepts from this theory.ParticipantsPregnant women who are self-managing a chronic condition.ResultsA total of 2695 articles were screened and 25 were reviewed in detail. All 16 included studies concerned diabetes self-management in pregnancy. Common themes coalesced around motivations for, and barriers to, self-management. Women self-managed primarily for the health of their baby. Barriers identified were anxiety, lack of understanding and a lack of support from families and healthcare professionals.ConclusionsPregnant women have different motivating factors for self-management than the general population and further research on a range of self-management of chronic conditions in pregnancy is needed.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019136681., National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care Oxford (NIHR CLAHRC Oxford) now recommissioned as NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Oxford and Thames Valley, the Primary Care Research Trust, and a NIHR Programme Grant (RP-PG-0614-20005).

BackgroundAntihypertensives reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease but are also associated with harms including acute kidney injury (AKI). Few data exist to guide clinical decision making regarding these risks.AimTo develop a prediction model estimating the risk of AKI in people potentially indicated for antihypertensive treatment.Design and settingObservational cohort study using routine primary care data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) in England.MethodPeople aged ≥40 years, with at least one blood pressure measurement between 130 mmHg and 179 mmHg were included. Outcomes were admission to hospital or death with AKI within 1, 5, and 10 years. The model was derived with data from CPRD GOLD (n= 1 772 618), using a Fine–Gray competing risks approach, with subsequent recalibration using pseudo-values. External validation used data from CPRD Aurum (n= 3 805 322).ResultsThe mean age of participants was 59.4 years and 52% were female. The final model consisted of 27 predictors and showed good discrimination at 1, 5, and 10 years (C-statistic for 10-year risk 0.821, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.818 to 0.823). There was some overprediction at the highest predicted probabilities (ratio of observed to expected event probability for 10-year risk 0.633, 95% CI = 0.621 to 0.645), affecting patients with the highest risk. Most patients (>95%) had a low 1- to 5-year risk of AKI, and at 10 years only 0.1% of the population had a high AKI and low CVD risk.ConclusionThis clinical prediction model enables GPs to accurately identify patients at high risk of AKI, which will aid treatment decisions. As the vast majority of patients were at low risk, such a model may provide useful reassurance that most antihypertensive treatment is safe and appropriate while flagging the few for whom this is not the case.

INTRODUCTION: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common arrhythmia associated with 30% of strokes, as well as other cardiovascular disease, dementia and death. AF meets many criteria for screening, but there is limited evidence that AF screening reduces stroke. Consequently, no countries recommend national screening programmes for AF. The Screening for Atrial Fibrillation with ECG to Reduce stroke (SAFER) trial aims to determine whether screening for AF is effective at reducing risk of stroke. The aim of the pilot study is to assess feasibility of the main trial and inform implementation of screening and trial procedures. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: SAFER is planned to be a pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT) of over 100 000 participants aged 70 years and over, not on long-term anticoagulation therapy at baseline, with an average follow-up of 5 years. Participants are asked to record four traces every day for 3 weeks on a hand-held single-lead ECG device. Cardiologists remotely confirm episodes of AF identified by the device algorithm, and general practitioners follow-up with anticoagulation as appropriate. The pilot study is a cluster RCT in 36 UK general practices, randomised 2:1 control to intervention, recruiting approximately 12 600 participants. Pilot study outcomes include AF detection rate, anticoagulation uptake and other parameters to incorporate into sample size calculations for the main trial. Questionnaires sent to a sample of participants will assess impact of screening on psychological health. Process evaluation and qualitative studies will underpin implementation of screening during the main trial. An economic evaluation using the pilot data will confirm whether it is plausible that screening might be cost-effective. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The London-Central Research Ethics Committee (19/LO/1597) and Confidentiality Advisory Group (19/CAG/0226) provided ethical approval. Dissemination will be via publications, patient-friendly summaries, reports and engagement with the UK National Screening Committee. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN72104369., The SAFER pilot study and main trial are funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) [Programme Grants for Applied Research Programme (Reference Number RP-PG-0217-20007)]. The SAFER feasibility study is funded by the NIHR [School for Primary Care Research (SPCR-2014-10043, project 410)]. SAFER is a contributor to / partner of AFFECT-EU receiving funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation Programme under grant agreement NO. 847770. RM and JL are supported by the Wellcome Trust as part of the Wellcome Trust PhD Programme for Primary Care Clinicians [grant number 203921/Z/16/Z]. JB, SH and AP are based in The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute (THIS Institute), University of Cambridge. THIS Institute is supported by the Health Foundation, an independent charity committed to bringing about better health and healthcare for people in the UK. JB is supported by the Health Foundation’s grant to the University of Cambridge for The Healthcare Improvement Studies (THIS) Institute (RG88620). JM and FDRH are NIHR Senior Investigators. FDRH acknowledges support from NIHR ARC OTV and Oxford BRC (OUT). RJM is an NIHR Senior Investigator and acknowledges support from NIHR ARC OTV. NA is supported by a Health Foundation Improvement Science Fellowship and also by the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration East Midlands (ARC EM). RJ is an NIHR-funded Academic Clinical Lecturer. The University of Cambridge has received salary support in respect of SJG from the NHS in the East of England through the Clinical Academic Reserve. BF reports grants to the Heart Research Institute. All the funders and sponsors had no involvement in the development of this protocol and will have no involvement in any aspect of the study itself. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the Wellcome Trust, the NIHR or the UK Department of Health and Social Care.

IntroductionSelf-monitoring of blood pressure (BP) in pregnancy could improve the detection and management of pregnancy hypertension, while also empowering and engaging women in their own care. Two linked trials aim to evaluate whether BP self-monitoring in pregnancy improves the detection of raised BP during higher risk pregnancies (BUMP 1) and whether self-monitoring reduces systolic BP during hypertensive pregnancy (BUMP 2).Methods and analysesBoth are multicentre, non-masked, parallel group, randomised controlled trials. Participants will be randomised to self-monitoring with telemonitoring or usual care. BUMP 1 will recruit a minimum of 2262 pregnant women at higher risk of pregnancy hypertension and BUMP 2 will recruit a minimum of 512 pregnant women with either gestational or chronic hypertension. The BUMP 1 primary outcome is the time to the first recording of raised BP by a healthcare professional. The BUMP 2 primary outcome is mean systolic BP between baseline and delivery recorded by healthcare professionals. Other outcomes will include maternal and perinatal outcomes, quality of life and adverse events. An economic evaluation of BP self-monitoring in addition to usual care compared with usual care alone will be assessed across both study populations within trial and with modelling to estimate long-term cost-effectiveness. A linked process evaluation will combine quantitative and qualitative data to examine how BP self-monitoring in pregnancy is implemented and accepted in both daily life and routine clinical practice.Ethics and disseminationThe trials have been approved by a Research Ethics Committee (17/WM/0241) and relevant research authorities. They will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international conferences. If shown to be effective, BP self-monitoring would be applicable to a large population of pregnant women.Trial registration numberNCT03334149

ObjectiveOne in 20 women are affected by pre-eclampsia, a major cause of maternal and perinatal morbidity, death and premature birth worldwide. Diagnosis is made from monitoring blood pressure (BP) and urine and symptoms at antenatal visits after 20 weeks of pregnancy. There are no randomised data from contemporary trials to guide the efficacy of self-monitoring of BP (SMBP) in pregnancy. We explored the perspectives of maternity staff to understand the context and health system challenges to introducing and implementing SMBP in maternity care, ahead of undertaking a trial.DesignExploratory study using a qualitative approach.SettingEight hospitals, English National Health Service.ParticipantsObstetricians, community and hospital midwives, pharmacists, trainee doctors (n=147).MethodsSemi-structured interviews with site research team members and clinicians, interviews and focus group discussions. Rapid content and thematic analysis undertaken.ResultsThe main themes to emerge around SMBP include (1) different BP changes in pregnancy, (2) reliability and accuracy of BP monitoring, (3) anticipated impact of SMBP on women, (4) anticipated impact of SMBP on the antenatal care system, (5) caution, uncertainty and evidence, (6) concerns over action/inaction and patient safety.ConclusionsThe potential impact of SMBP on maternity services is profound although nuanced. While introducing SMBP does not reduce the responsibility clinicians have for women’s health, it may enhance the responsibilities and agency of pregnant women, and introduces a new set of relationships into maternity care. This is a new space for reconfiguration of roles, mutual expectations and the relationships between and responsibilities of healthcare providers and women.Trial registration numberNCT03334149.

Objective To examine the association between antihypertensive treatment and specific adverse events. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Eligibility criteria Randomised controlled trials of adults receiving antihypertensives compared with placebo or no treatment, more antihypertensive drugs compared with fewer antihypertensive drugs, or higher blood pressure targets compared with lower targets. To avoid small early phase trials, studies were required to have at least 650 patient years of follow-up. Information sources Searches were conducted in Embase, Medline, CENTRAL, and the Science Citation Index databases from inception until 14 April 2020. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was falls during trial follow-up. Secondary outcomes were acute kidney injury, fractures, gout, hyperkalaemia, hypokalaemia, hypotension, and syncope. Additional outcomes related to death and major cardiovascular events were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and random effects meta-analysis was used to pool rate ratios, odds ratios, and hazard ratios across studies, allowing for between study heterogeneity (τ 2 ). Results Of 15 023 articles screened for inclusion, 58 randomised controlled trials were identified, including 280 638 participants followed up for a median of 3 (interquartile range 2-4) years. Most of the trials (n=40, 69%) had a low risk of bias. Among seven trials reporting data for falls, no evidence was found of an association with antihypertensive treatment (summary risk ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.24, τ 2 =0.009). Antihypertensives were associated with an increased risk of acute kidney injury (1.18, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.39, τ 2 =0.037, n=15), hyperkalaemia (1.89, 1.56 to 2.30, τ 2 =0.122, n=26), hypotension (1.97, 1.67 to 2.32, τ 2 =0.132, n=35), and syncope (1.28, 1.03 to 1.59, τ 2 =0.050, n=16). The heterogeneity between studies assessing acute kidney injury and hyperkalaemia events was reduced when focusing on drugs that affect the renin angiotensin-aldosterone system. Results were robust to sensitivity analyses focusing on adverse events leading to withdrawal from each trial. Antihypertensive treatment was associated with a reduced risk of all cause mortality, cardiovascular death, and stroke, but not of myocardial infarction. Conclusions This meta-analysis found no evidence to suggest that antihypertensive treatment is associated with falls but found evidence of an association with mild (hyperkalaemia, hypotension) and severe adverse events (acute kidney injury, syncope). These data could be used to inform shared decision making between doctors and patients about initiation and continuation of antihypertensive treatment, especially in patients at high risk of harm because of previous adverse events or poor renal function. Registration PROSPERO CRD42018116860.

IntroductionRecent evidence suggests that larger blood pressure reductions and multiple antihypertensive drugs may be harmful in older people, particularly frail individuals with polypharmacy and multimorbidity. However, there is a lack of evidence to support deprescribing of antihypertensives, which limits the practice of medication reduction in routine clinical care. The aim of this trial is to examine whether antihypertensive medication reduction is possible in older patients without significant changes in blood pressure control at follow-up.Methods and analysisThis trial will use a primary care-based, open-label, randomised controlled trial design. A total of 540 participants will be recruited, aged ≥80 years, with systolic blood pressure Ethics and disseminationThe protocol, informed consent form, participant information sheet and all other participant facing material have been approved by the Research Ethics Committee (South Central—Oxford A; ref 16/SC/0628), Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (ref 21584/0371/001–0001), host institution(s) and Health Research Authority. All research outputs will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international conferences.Trial registration numberEudraCT 2016-004236-38;ISRCTN97503221; Pre-results.

OBJECTIVES: Evidence to support initiation of pharmacological treatment in patients with uncomplicated (low risk) mild hypertension is inconclusive. As such, clinical guidelines are contradictory and healthcare policy has changed regularly. The aim of this study was to determine the incidence of lifestyle advice and drug therapy in this population and whether secular trends were associated with policy changes. DESIGN: Longitudinal cohort study. SETTING: Primary care practices contributing to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink in England. PARTICIPANTS: Data were extracted from the linked electronic health records of patients aged 18-74 years, with stage 1 hypertension (blood pressure between 140/90 and 159/99 mm Hg), no cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors and no treatment, from 1998 to 2015. Patients exited if follow-up records became unavailable, they progressed to stage 2 hypertension, developed a CVD risk factor or received lifestyle advice/treatment. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The association between policy changes and incidence of lifestyle advice or treatment, examined using an interrupted time-series analysis. RESULTS: A total of 108 843 patients were defined as having uncomplicated mild hypertension (mean age 51.9±12.9 years, 60.0% female). Patientsspent a median 2.6 years (IQR 0.9-5.5) in the study, after which 12.2% (95% CI 12.0% to 12.4%) were given lifestyle advice, 29.9% (95% CI 29.7% to 30.2%) were prescribed medication and 19.4% (95% CI 19.2% to 19.6%) were given both. The introduction of the quality outcomes framework (QOF) and subsequent changes to QOF indicators were followed by significant increases in the incidence of lifestyle advice. Treatment prescriptions decreased slightly over time, but were not associated with policy changes. CONCLUSIONS: Despite secular trends that accord with UK guidance, many patients are still prescribed treatment for mild hypertension. Adequately powered studies are needed to determine if this is appropriate.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine the impact of transient ischaemic attack (TIA) service modification in two hospitals on costs and clinical outcomes. DESIGN: Discrete event simulation model using data from routine electronic health records from 2011. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with suspected TIA were followed from symptom onset to presentation, referral to specialist clinics, treatment and subsequent stroke. INTERVENTIONS: Included existing versus previous (less same day clinics) and hypothetical service reconfiguration (7-day service with less availability of clinics per day). OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome of the model was the prevalence of major stroke after TIA. Secondary outcomes included service costs (including those of treating subsequent stroke) and time to treatment and attainment of national targets for service provision (proportion of high-risk patients (according to ABCD2 score) seen within 24 hours). RESULTS: The estimated costs of previous service provision for 490 patients (aged 74±12 years, 48.9% female and 23.6% high risk) per year at each site were £340 000 and £368 000, respectively. This resulted in 31% of high-risk patients seen within 24 hours of referral (47/150) with a median time from referral to clinic attendance/treatment of 1.15 days (IQR 0.93-2.88). The costs associated with the existing and hypothetical services decreased by £5000 at one site and increased £21 000 at the other site. Target attainment was improved to 79% (118/150). However, the median time to clinic attendance was only reduced to 0.85 days (IQR 0.17-0.99) and thus no appreciable impact on the modelled incidence of major stroke was observed (10.7 per year, 99% CI 10.5 to 10.9 (previous service) vs 10.6 per year, 99% CI 10.4 to 10.8 (existing service)). CONCLUSIONS: Reconfiguration of services for TIA is effective at increasing target attainment, but in services which are already working efficiently (treating patients within 1-2 days), it has little estimated impact on clinical outcomes and increased investment may not be worthwhile.

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 (9June 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 (97,138/8,292 [86%] of randomised participants). Overall, self-monitoring was associated with reduced clinic systolic blood pressure (9sBP) 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 (91,478 patients), which assessed selfmonitoring with little or no co-intervention. There was no association between self-monitoring and either lower clinic or ambulatory sBP in this group (9clinic -0.2 mmHg [-2.2, 1.8]; ambulatory 1.1 mmHg [-0.3, 2.5]). Results for diastolic blood pressure (9dBP) 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 (9including 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., This research was funded by the Institute for Health Research School for Primary Care Research (NIHR SPCR number 112) and via an NIHR Professorship for RM (NIHR-RP-02-12-015). JS holds a Medical Research Council (MRC) Strategic Skills Postdoctoral Fellowship (MR/K022032/1). FDRH is part funded as Director of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) School for Primary Care Research (SPCR), Theme Leader of the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC), and Director of the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) Oxford. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of different methods of blood pressure (BP) measurement compared with reference standards for the diagnosis of hypertension in patients with obesity with a large arm circumference. DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis with hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic models. Bland-Altman analyses where individual patient data were available. Methodological quality appraised using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS2) criteria. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, DARE, Medion and Trip databases were searched. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Cross-sectional, randomised and cohort studies of diagnostic test accuracy that compared any non-invasive BP tests (upper arm, forearm, wrist, finger) with an appropriate reference standard (invasive BP, correctly fitting upper arm cuff, ambulatory BP monitoring) in primary care were included. RESULTS: 4037 potentially relevant papers were identified. 20 studies involving 26 different comparisons met the inclusion criteria. Individual patient data were available from 4 studies. No studies satisfied all QUADAS2 criteria. Compared with the reference test of invasive BP, a correctly fitting upper arm BP cuff had a sensitivity of 0.87 (0.79 to 0.93) and a specificity of 0.85 (0.64 to 0.95); insufficient evidence was available for other comparisons to invasive BP. Compared with the reference test of a correctly fitting upper arm cuff, BP measurement at the wrist had a sensitivity of 0.92 (0.64 to 0.99) and a specificity of 0.92 (0.85 to 0.87). Measurement with an incorrectly fitting standard cuff had a sensitivity of 0.73 (0.67 to 0.78) and a specificity of 0.76 (0.69 to 0.82). Measurement at the forearm had a sensitivity of 0.84 (0.71 to 0.92) and a specificity 0.75 of (0.66 to 0.83). Bland-Altman analysis of individual patient data from 3 studies comparing wrist and upper arm BP showed a mean difference of 0.46 mm Hg for systolic BP measurement and 2.2 mm Hg for diastolic BP measurement. CONCLUSIONS: BP measurement with a correctly fitting upper arm cuff is sufficiently sensitive and specific to diagnose hypertension in patients with obesity with a large upper arm circumference. If a correctly fitting upper arm cuff cannot be applied, an incorrectly fitting standard size cuff should not be used and BP measurement at the wrist should be considered.