Trial reportJournal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics2012
Misclassification and discordance of measured blood pressure from patient's true blood pressure in current clinical practice: a clinical trial simulation case study.
Trial report in Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predicted impact of various clinical practice strategies on cardiovascular risk for the treatment of hypertension: a clinical trial simulation study.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2014Trial
- Sorafenib dose escalation is not uniformly associated with blood pressure elevations in normotensive patients with advanced malignancies.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2014Trial
- Toward a Framework for Outcome-Based Analytical Performance Specifications: A Methodology Review of Indirect Methods for Evaluating the Impact of Measurement Uncertainty on Clinical Outcomes.Clinical chemistry · 2019Review
- Prevalence of white coat and masked hypertension in Africa: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2018Review
- Prospective external validation of the Predicting Out-of-OFfice Blood Pressure (PROOF-BP) strategy for triaging ambulatory monitoring in the diagnosis and management of hypertension: observational cohort study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2018Observational
- Scaling up the use of home blood pressure monitoring in the management of hypertension in low-income countries: A step towards curbing the burden of hypertension.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2017Article
- Observational
- Predicting Out-of-Office Blood Pressure in the Clinic (PROOF-BP): Derivation and Validation of a Tool to Improve the Accuracy of Blood Pressure Measurement in Clinical Practice.Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) · 2016Article
- Predicting out-of-office blood pressure level using repeated measurements in the clinic: an observational cohort study.Journal of hypertension · 2014Observational
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
Treatment decisions for hypertension using sphygmomanometer based measurements and the current clinical practice paradigm do not account for the timing of blood pressure (BP) measurement. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical implications of discordance between measured and true BP, to quantify BP misclassification rate at a typical clinical visit in current clinical practice, and to propose a BP calibration system to decrease the impact of timing of BP measurement. A clinical trial simulation case study was performed using an in silico Monte Carlo Simulation approach. The time-courses of BPs with and without an antihypertensive treatment effect were simulated from a baseline BP model combined with an antihypertensive PK/PD model. Virtual subject characteristics were sampled from the FDA internal database. The baseline BP model was qualified using observed 24 h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) data from 225 subjects by a visual predictive check as well as a global sensitivity analysis. First of all, our results showed that the measured cuff BP in current typical clinical practice deviated from the true values. (1) Cuff BP deviated from the true values by more than 5 mmHg in 57 % (95 % CI: 54-61 %) of patients and more than 10 mmHg in 26 % (95 % CI: 22-32 %) of patients respectively. (2) These discordances were reduced to 28 % (deviation ≥ 5 mmHg, 95 % CI: 18-40 %) and 9 % (deviation ≥ 10 mmHg, 95 % CI: 4-18%) of patients assuming perfect sphygmomanometer measurement and thus represent the contribution of ignoring the daily circadian rhythm of BP. Secondly, our results showed 23-32 % of patients were misclassified to an incorrect BP category for a casual clinical visit based on JNC 7 guideline. In addition, the accuracy of the measured cuff BP varied by time of clinic visit. Specifically, 11:00 AM to 3:00 PM was identified to be the better time frame, while times before 9:00 AM were the worst time frame. Therefore, clinic visit time may need to be adjusted accordingly. Finally, we proposed an easy BP calibration method for clinic use to adjust for time of day differences due to circadian variability in case that the desirable clinic visit time cannot be tailored for practical reasons.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22569889What 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.