Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19863865›Full record

ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2009

Role of ambulatory and home blood pressure recording in clinical practice.

Nimrta Ghuman, Patrick Campbell, William B White

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current cardiology reports, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Advances in Non-Invasive Blood Pressure Monitoring.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Review
  8. Wearable Cuff-Less Blood Pressure Estimation at Home via Pulse Transit Time.IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Nimrta GhumanDivision of Hypertension and Clinical Pharmacology, Pat and Jim Calhoun Cardiology Center, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, 263 Farmington Avenue, Farmington, CT 06030-3940, USA.
Patrick Campbell
William B White

Funding

Contingency Management for Initiating Smoking AbstinenceR01DA024667 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT SCH OF MED/DNT · PI WHITE, WILLIAM BARRY · 2008 to 2012
$2.8M
NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA024667NIDA NIH HHS R01DA024667
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Because of shortcomings of the office blood pressure (BP) measurement in individuals with hypertension (eg, white coat and masked hypertension effects, terminal digit bias, and large variability in BP among a small number of readings), use of out-of-office blood pressure measurements has become more common in clinical practice. The presence of the syndromes of white-coat and masked hypertension creates the concern that the office BP measurements are not reflective of an individual patient's true BP values. Home (or self) and ambulatory BP assessments have been used in numerous types of clinical trials and have demonstrated their usefulness as reliable research and clinical tools. In this article, we review the recent literature on the benefits and limitations of home (self) and ambulatory monitoring of the BP in clinical practice. In particular, how it relates to the diagnosis of patients with various presentations of hypertension and to cardio-vascular outcomes with long-term follow-ups of population cohorts.

Indexed as

Blood Pressure Monitoring, AmbulatoryBlood PressureCircadian RhythmHumansHypertension

Identifiers

PMID19863865
PMCPMC2896788

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.