Mant 2016.
| Study characteristics | ||
| Methods | RCT Unit of randomisation: participant |
|
| Participants | Place of recruitment: general practice Numbers randomised: total: 529 (I: 266; C: 263) % Completing final follow‐up: 72% Inclusion criteria: stroke or TIA Exclusion criteria: BP < 125 mmHg, patient taking more than 3 anti‐hypertensive medications, postural drop of 20 mmHg or more, already treated to BP of 130 mmHg, unable to give consent, insufficient corroborative evidence of stroke or TIA Type of stroke: stroke (47%); TIA (53%) Mean age (SD) : I: 71.9 (9.1) I: 71.1 (9.4) Gender (% men): 59% Ethnicity: white ethnicity I: 260 (98%) C: 259 (98%) Socio‐economic or socio‐demographic status: not reported |
|
| Interventions | Intervention details (components, length, frequency): participants were randomised to achieving a BP target of either < 130 mmHg (or a 10 mmHg reduction if baseline pressure was < 140 mmHg) or a standard target (< 140 mmHg). A practise nurse would see intervention participants at 3 month intervals (if previous BP was below target) or after 1 month (if previous BP was above target). GPs were given a protocol that reflected national guidelines for lowering BP Location: community Mode of delivery: nurse‐led monitoring Personnel responsible for delivery: practice nurse Timing post‐stroke: not reported Control: usual care ‐ whereby the BP target was < 149 mmHG, irrespective of baseline BP with the same practice nurse monitoring as the intervention group |
|
| Outcomes | Primary outcome was change in systolic BP between baseline and 1 year | |
| General Information | Funding: funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR; Stroke Prevention in Primary Care, Programme Grant for Applied Research, RP‐PG‐06061153) and by an NIHR Professorship Country of origin: UK Publication language: not stated |
|
| Notes | Analysis method: mixed models, adjusting for baseline BP, age group, sex, diabetes, AF and practice Risk of bias: unclear |
|
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Minimisation based on age, sex, diabetes, AF and baseline BP |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Insufficient information to permit judgement |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Missing values were assessed using by three approaches |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | Protocol used has been previously published |
| Other bias | Low risk | The study appears to be free of other sources of bias |