Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24152822›Full record

ArticleJournal of human hypertension2014

Patients' preference for ambulatory versus home blood pressure monitoring.

E G Nasothimiou, N Karpettas, M G Dafni, G S Stergiou

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of human hypertension, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03872856 (Home Blood Pressure Monitoring Intervention for Self-Management of High Blood Pressure Among Alaska Native People), which is not on this map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

NCT03872856 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Home Blood Pressure Monitoring Intervention for Self-Management of High Blood Pressure Among Alaska Native People

TypeinterventionalSponsorSouthcentral FoundationRan2019 to 2023Enrolled164ConditionsHypertensionArmsBP-ICAN
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Isolated Morning Hypertension is a Predictor of Cardiovascular Events in Treated and Well Controlled Hypertensive Patients.High blood pressure & cardiovascular prevention : the official journal of the Italian Society of Hypertension · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

4 authors.

E G NasothimiouHypertension Center, Third University Department of Medicine, Sotiria Hospital, Athens, Greece.
N KarpettasHypertension Center, Third University Department of Medicine, Sotiria Hospital, Athens, Greece.
M G DafniHypertension Center, Third University Department of Medicine, Sotiria Hospital, Athens, Greece.
G S StergiouHypertension Center, Third University Department of Medicine, Sotiria Hospital, Athens, Greece.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patient's preference might influence compliance with antihypertensive treatment and thereby long-term blood pressure (BP) control. This study compared patients' preference in using ambulatory (ABPM) versus home BP monitoring (HBPM). Subjects referred for hypertension were evaluated with 24-h ABPM and 7-day HBPM. Participants filled a questionnaire including demographics and Likert scale questions regarding their acceptance, preference, disturbance, activity restriction and feasibility of using ABPM and HBPM. A total of 119 patients were invited and 104 (87%) were included (mean age 51±11 years, 58% men, 38% time to work >8 h). A total of 82% reported a positive overall opinion for HBPM versus 63% for ABPM (P<0.05). 62% considered ABPM as more reliable than HBPM but 60% would choose HBPM for their next BP evaluation (P<0.05 for both comparisons). Moderate to severe discomfort from ABPM was reported by 55% and severe restriction of their daily activities by 30% compared with 13% and 7%, respectively, from HBPM (P<0.001 for both comparisons). The overall score for HBPM and ABPM (range 4-25; higher score indicating worse performance) was 6.6±2.5 and 10±4.0 (mean difference 4.4±4.6, P<0.001), respectively. In binary logistic regression models, neither previous experience with BP monitoring nor demographic characteristics appeared to influence patients' preference. These data suggest that HBPM is superior to ABPM in terms of overall acceptance and preference by hypertensive patients. Patients' preference deserves further research and should be taken into account in decision making in clinical practice.

Indexed as

AdultAntihypertensive AgentsBlood PressureBlood Pressure Monitoring, AmbulatoryFemaleHumansHypertensionLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedPatient CompliancePatient PreferenceProspective StudiesReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesTreatment OutcomeAntihypertensive Agents

Identifiers

PMID24152822

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.