ArticleJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2008
Impact of terminal digit preference by family physicians and sphygmomanometer calibration errors on blood pressure value: implication for hypertension screening.
Article in Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.), 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sources of inaccuracy in the measurement of adult patients' resting blood pressure in clinical settings: a systematic review.Journal of hypertension · 2017Pooled it
- A multi-level system quality improvement intervention to reduce racial disparities in hypertension care and control: study protocol.Implementation science : IS · 2013Trial
- Potential impact of systematic and random errors in blood pressure measurement on the prevalence of high office blood pressure in the United States.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2022Article
- Evaluating measurement error in readings of blood pressure for adolescents and young adults.Blood pressure · 2015Article
- Manual or automated sphygmomanometer? A historical cohort to quantify measurement bias in blood pressure recording.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The accuracy of blood pressure (BP) measurement is important; systematic small errors can mislabel BP status in many persons. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of 2 types of measurement errors on the evaluation of BP in family medicine: errors associated with terminal digit preference and those associated with calibration errors of sphygmomanometers. Secondary data analyses from 2 different projects were used to derive empiric distributions of terminal digit and BP device errors. Taking into account both types of errors, the proportion of false positives (falsely high BP) and false negatives (falsely normal BP) varied between 0. 82% and 5.18% of the population of consulting family physicians. In the United States, false positives and false negatives in patients' BP evaluations might lead to overtreating or undertreating 1.15 million to 7.25 million patients. Results support the need for the development of systematic interventions for quality control of BP measurements and periodic retraining for health professionals.
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.