Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23126345›Full record

Trial reportJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2012

Blood pressure measurement device, number and timing of visits, and intra-individual visit-to-visit variability of blood pressure.

Emily B Levitan, Niko Kaciroti, Suzanne Oparil, Stevo Julius, Paul Muntner

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Emily B LevitanDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35294-0022, USA. elevitan@uab.edu
Niko Kaciroti
Suzanne Oparil
Stevo Julius
Paul Muntner

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Visit-to-visit variability (VVV) of blood pressure is associated with cardiovascular disease. The authors examined the effects of visit number and timing and automated or manual measurement device on VVV in the placebo arm of the Trial of Preventing Hypertension (TROPHY) (N=225) and simulations. VVV was assessed using intra-individual standard deviation (SD), range, maximum, coefficient of variation, successive variation, and average real variability of systolic blood pressure. VVV increased with number of visits used to calculate it in the TROPHY population (P for trend <.05 for all metrics) and simulations. Using consecutive visits in TROPHY, average SD was 5.6 mm Hg from 3 visits, 6.8 mm Hg from 7 visits, and 7.7 mm Hg from 18 visits. When 7 visits were spread out across 4 years, the average SD was higher (7.5 mm Hg) than when visits were consecutive over 18 months (P<.001). SD was higher using a single blood pressure measurement per visit (compared with the mean of 3 measurements per visit P<.001) and with automated vs manual devices (P<.001). In summary, number and timing of visits and device used to measure blood pressure influence VVV and need to be considered when designing, interpreting, and comparing studies.

Indexed as

Office VisitsAdultAgedBlood Pressure DeterminationFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID23126345
PMCPMC8108966

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.