Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.3399/bjgp14X677851 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.3399/bjgp14X677851 C3964448!3964448!24686887     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 209.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 209.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 209.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 209.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       Br+J+Gen+Pract 2014 ; 64 (621): e223-32 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=24686887|t=2014. Doctors record higher blood pressures than nurses: systematic review and meta-analysis |pdf=|usr=}}{{24686887}} gab.com Text Doctors record higher blood pressures than nurses: systematic review and meta-analysis JO: Br J Gen Pract http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=24686887 #FOAvip Background: The magnitude of the ?white coat effect?, the alerting rise in blood pressure, is greater for doctors than nurses. This could bias interpretation of studies on nurse-led care in hypertension, and risks overestimating or overtreating high blood pressure by doctors in clinical practice. Aim: To quantify differences between blood pressure measurements made by doctors and nurses. Design and setting: Systematic review and meta-analysis using searches of MEDLINE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Embase, journal collections, and conference abstracts. Method: Studies in adults reporting mean blood pressures measured by doctors and nurses at the same visit were selected, and mean blood pressures extracted, by two reviewers. Study risk of bias was assessed using modified Cochrane criteria. Outcomes were pooled across studies using random effects meta-analysis. Results: In total, 15 studies (11 hypertensive; four mixed hypertensive and normotensive populations) were included from 1899 unique citations. Compared with doctors? measurements, nurse-measured blood pressures were lower (weighted mean differences: systolic ?7.0 [95% confidence interval {CI} = ?4.7 to ?9.2] mmHg, diastolic ?3.8 [95% CI = ?2.2 to ?5.4] mmHg). For studies at low risk of bias, differences were lower: systolic ?4.6 (95% CI = ?1.9 to ?7.3) mmHg; diastolic ?1.7 (95% CI = ?0.1 to ?3.2) mmHg. White coat hypertension was diagnosed more frequently based on doctors? than on nurses? readings: relative risk 1.6 (95% CI =1.2 to 2.1). Conclusions: The white coat effect is smaller for blood pressure measurements made by nurses than by doctors. This systematic difference has implications for hypertension diagnosis and management. Caution is required in pooling data from studies using both nurse- and doctor-measured blood pressures. Twit Text FOAVip Doctors record higher blood pressures than nurses: systematic review and meta-analysis ????Br J Gen Pract http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=24686887 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=24686887 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|24686887}}</ref> Doctors record higher blood pressures than nurses: systematic review and meta-analysis #MMPMID24686887 Clark CE; Horvath IA; Taylor RS; Campbell JL Br J Gen Pract 2014[Apr]; 64 (621): e223-32 PMID24686887show ga Background: The magnitude of the ?white coat effect?, the alerting rise in blood pressure, is greater for doctors than nurses. This could bias interpretation of studies on nurse-led care in hypertension, and risks overestimating or overtreating high blood pressure by doctors in clinical practice. Aim: To quantify differences between blood pressure measurements made by doctors and nurses. Design and setting: Systematic review and meta-analysis using searches of MEDLINE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Embase, journal collections, and conference abstracts. Method: Studies in adults reporting mean blood pressures measured by doctors and nurses at the same visit were selected, and mean blood pressures extracted, by two reviewers. Study risk of bias was assessed using modified Cochrane criteria. Outcomes were pooled across studies using random effects meta-analysis. Results: In total, 15 studies (11 hypertensive; four mixed hypertensive and normotensive populations) were included from 1899 unique citations. Compared with doctors? measurements, nurse-measured blood pressures were lower (weighted mean differences: systolic ?7.0 [95% confidence interval {CI} = ?4.7 to ?9.2] mmHg, diastolic ?3.8 [95% CI = ?2.2 to ?5.4] mmHg). For studies at low risk of bias, differences were lower: systolic ?4.6 (95% CI = ?1.9 to ?7.3) mmHg; diastolic ?1.7 (95% CI = ?0.1 to ?3.2) mmHg. White coat hypertension was diagnosed more frequently based on doctors? than on nurses? readings: relative risk 1.6 (95% CI =1.2 to 2.1). Conclusions: The white coat effect is smaller for blood pressure measurements made by nurses than by doctors. This systematic difference has implications for hypertension diagnosis and management. Caution is required in pooling data from studies using both nurse- and doctor-measured blood pressures. äDoctors record higher blood pressures than nurses: systematic review a(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing