ArticleKorean circulation journal2013
Comparison of the average of five readings with averages from fewer readings for automated oscillometric blood pressure measurement in an outpatient clinic.
Article in Korean circulation journal, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Oscillometric blood pressure values in infants at 3, 6 and 12 months of age: a cohort study.BMJ paediatrics open · 2026Article
- Utility of blood pressure measurements at an initial screening visit to identify Chinese children and adolescents with hypertension.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2021Article
- Comparison of multiple blood pressure frequency methods with optimum blood pressure measurement among Iranian individuals.Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences · 2020Article
- Performance of blood pressure measurements at an initial screening visit for the diagnosis of hypertension in children.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesThe optimal number of consecutive measurements for obtaining an average blood pressure (BP) reading in clinical practice is yet undefined by research. This study aimed to compare readings obtained from an average of 5 with averages of 2, 3, and 4, sequential measurements. SUBJECTS AND
methodsUsing an automated oscillometric device (BpTRU), BP measurement was conducted on 410 consenting adults attending a general outpatients clinic. Comparison of an average of 5 readings with averages of 2, 3, and 4 readings involved evaluation of correlations, Bland-Altman analysis, comparison of means and distribution of readings, and determination of the proportion of differences between compared readings which were clinically non-significant.
results397 (96.8%) sets of complete BP readings were suitable for analysis. Clinically non-significant differences (≤5 mm Hg) were found between at least 79.3% (n=315) and 96.5% (n=383) of compared systolic and diastolic readings, respectively. Bland-Altman's analysis revealed that the 95% limits of agreement for the differences between compared readings were approximately 2-4, 3-7, and 4-11 mm Hg for 2, 3 and 4 readings' systolic comparisons while those for diastolic comparisons were 2-3, 3-5, and 4-7 mm Hg, respectively. Statistically non-significant differences were observed in all comparisons of the distributions of readings that were classified as <140 mm Hg or ≥140 mm Hg and <90 mm Hg or ≥90 mm Hg for systolic and diastolic readings, respectively. Strong positive correlations were found between 5 average readings and each of 2, 3, and 4 average readings, respectively.
conclusionAn average of 5 readings may be excessive for routine BP measurement using this device at outpatient clinics.
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.