TLDR: Cite is as any other work not done by the authors.
One advice I was given (I think specifically aimed at double-blind reviews) was to anonymise the citation. The point is that one should focus on the science: this new paper X is an improvement, an extension, or builds upon, an older paper Y. The primary point of references (in my opinion) is for the reader to be able to track the science (not the authors). So, I would suggest the following:
This work builds upon a study surveying the most common citation practices in academic literature .
If you want to mention the author's names, that can also be done in this neutral style:
This work builds upon a study by Abdulhameed et al.  surveying the most common citation practices in academic literature.
Both of these styles lend themselves to a double-blind review: upon submission, if author names are anonymised (e.g. removed from title page), nothing in either of the above examples screams "We are the authors of !" but still allows the reader or the reviewer to follow the science.
While I agree with you that drawing attention to the fact that the work you are building upon was in fact authored by the same researchers comes across as "broadcasting" (and I consider it bad taste personally), I have seen such a citation style as well, and not infrequently, e.g.:
This work builds upon our previous work (the previous work by the authors / the previous work from this research group / previous results from our project X) , which surveys the most common citation practices in academic literature.
I would not recommend using the last citation style, since, as mentioned, I consider it bad taste, but additionally also since I have in the past seen official style recommendations and guidelines arguing in favour of the first two approaches and discouraging the last approach (from conferences and journals with a double-blind review practice).