ReviewEuropean journal of applied physiology2014
Blood pressure regulation VII. The "morning surge" in blood pressure: measurement issues and clinical significance.
Review in European journal of applied physiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association of morning blood pressure surge with chronic kidney disease progression in patients with chronic kidney disease and hypertension.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2021Observational
- Ethnic disparities in the morning surge: Which utility for typifying the hypertensive patient?Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2020Article
- Magnitude of Morning Surge in Blood Pressure Is Associated with Sympathetic but Not Cardiac Baroreflex Sensitivity.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2016Article
- The 24 h pattern of arterial pressure in mice is determined mainly by heart rate-driven variation in cardiac output.Physiological reports · 2014Article
- Blood pressure regulation XI: overview and future research directions.European journal of applied physiology · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
In keeping with this review-series theme, we question whether the morning surge in blood pressure (MSBP) is a benign response to the physiological challenges during the first 3 h after waking, or is it clinically important? Therefore, we scrutinise the circadian-related mechanisms, the measurement methods and the prognostic value of the MSBP. The MSBP is relatively small (<2 mmHg) under constant routine conditions. Nevertheless, the blood pressure response to exercise can be 8-14 mm Hg greater in the morning vs. afternoon, even when prior sleep is controlled. Systematic bias between MSBP methods can be >10 mmHg. The "sleep-trough" method provides the largest MSBP (≈25 mmHg), but the sensitivity of MSBP to a treatment/intervention depends largely on its repeatability. The repeatability standard deviation (SD) for most MSBP methods is ≈8 mm Hg. While the magnitude of this SD precludes the use of MSBP for diagnostic decisions on individual patients, sample sizes for future intervention studies may be feasible, depending on the minimal clinically important difference in MSBP. This difference is somewhat unclear given that a large MSBP has recently been reported to predict a reduced, rather than a higher, risk of cardiovascular disease, although this particular study has been criticised. The MSBP is also naturally correlated to changes in physical activity and nocturnal "dipping" status. Therefore, it is important to account for these potential confounders of the MSBP, so that more precise knowledge about its clinical significance is gained, thereby providing a sound rationale for physiological investigation and translational research.
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.