Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22569889›Full record

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.

Yuyan Jin, Robert Bies, Marc R Gastonguay, Norman Stockbridge, Jogarao Gobburu, Rajanikanth Madabushi

Abstract readClinical TrialRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Observational
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

6 authors.

Yuyan JinPharmaTherapeutics Clinical Research, Clinical Pharmacology, Pfizer Inc., Groton, CT, USA.
Robert Bies
Marc R Gastonguay
Norman Stockbridge
Jogarao Gobburu
Rajanikanth Madabushi

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Blood PressureComputer SimulationBlood Pressure DeterminationDatabases, FactualHumansMonte Carlo Method

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.