ArticleAtencion primaria2006
[Different uses of home blood pressure measurement in the diagnosis and monitoring of hypertension].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo find differences between measurements of clinical blood pressure and self-monitored home blood pressure measurement (HBPM).
designDescriptive study developed in a general population census.
settingPrimary care. SUBJECTS: A total of 1411 subjects > or =18 years old were selected by stratified randomized sampling.
methodsA skilled nurse made 3 clinical blood pressure (CBP) measurements, and trained patients or their relatives in HBPM, doing 12 in one day. CBP and HBPM employed an electronic device (OMRON 705CP).
resultsA total of 12 HBPM from 1184 subjects (52% women) were completed, with a mean age of 47.6 (SD, 17.2); 195 subjects were known to have hypertension. White-coat effect was diagnosed in 14.9% of subjects with normal pressure, 22.3% of hypertense patients treated and 57.6% of subjects with suspicion of isolated clinical hypertension. Possible isolated clinical hypertension was diagnosed in 10% of subjects without hypertension. White Coat normal pressure was found in 2.3% of untreated subjects and 4.7% of subjects with treated hypertension. 20.7% of subjects with hypertension poorly controlled in the clinic were considered pseudo-refractory (11.4% at the end of dosage interval). 77% of subjects conducted HBPM on their own and 89% thought it easy to do so.
conclusionIncorporation of HBPM into daily medical practice could avoid 20%-30% of possible mistakes in diagnosis and monitoring of hypertense patients.
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.