ArticleAtencion primaria2006
[Home blood pressure self-monitoring. Influence of the mean calculation used on the diagnosis of white-coat hypertension].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Relative effectiveness of clinic and home blood pressure monitoring compared with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in diagnosis of hypertension: systematic review.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2011Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo describe the variations in the diagnosis performance of home blood pressure self-monitoring (hBPSM) with different methods for mean calculation, in order to diagnose white-coat hypertension (WCH).
designMulti-centre, descriptive, and comparative study to assess the diagnosis performance of a test method.
settingFour primary health care centres.
participantsA total of 157 recently-diagnosed, untreated patients with mild-moderate hypertension took part in the study.
methodsThe results obtained with hBPSM (3 consecutive days with readings in triplicate, morning-night) were compared with a "gold standard" out-patient blood pressure reading (OutBP).
resultsSystolic and diastolic BP values of the first day and first reading (morning-night) were higher than the remaining days and readings (linear trend P< .001). Results in hBPSM diagnostic performance using all readings to calculate the mean were: sensitivity (S), 47.6%; specificity (Sp), 77.4%; positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV), 58.8% and 68.6%, with positive and negative probability coefficients (PPC and NPC), 2.10 and 0.67. When readings with greater patient alarm reaction (first day and first reading, morning-night) were removed, greater values of S (61.9%) were obtained, albeit at expense of an excessive loss in Sp (64.5%) and without improvement in PPC (1.74).
conclusionsThe diagnostic performance of hBPSM in WCH was low and failed to improve with the use of different systems to calculate mean BP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.