ReviewHigh blood pressure & cardiovascular prevention : the official journal of the Italian Society of Hypertension2015
How should we manage a patient with masked hypertension?
Review in High blood pressure & cardiovascular prevention : the official journal of the Italian Society of Hypertension, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Masked Hypertension in Healthy Children and Adolescents: Who Should Be Screened?Current hypertension reports · 2023Review
- Home blood pressure monitoring: a position statement from the Korean Society of Hypertension Home Blood Pressure Forum.Clinical hypertension · 2022Review
- Epidemiological Impact and Clinical Consequences of Masked Hypertension: A Narrative Review.High blood pressure & cardiovascular prevention : the official journal of the Italian Society of Hypertension · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A number of studies have shown that masked hypertension (MH) confers an increased risk of target organ damage and of cardiovascular events suggesting that patients with MH would benefit from antihypertensive treatment. However, there is no general agreement about how this condition should be diagnosed. Although ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and self blood pressure measurement (SBPM) provide different and complementary clinical information, the recently published ESH/ESC guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension suggest that for initial assessment of the patient, SBPM may be more suitable in primary care and ABPM in specialist care. If SBPM provides borderline values it is advisable to confirm the diagnosis of MH with ABPM. As the prevalence of MH declines with repeated ABPMs the diagnosis of MH should be based on at least two ABPMs. Patients with MH should undergo a careful diagnostic work-up to assess the existence of additional risk factors including a worsened metabolic profile and the presence of target organ involvement. Treatment of the patient with MH should initially be addressed to improve the patient's lifestyle in order to decrease out-of-office blood pressure and to ameliorate metabolic data. If non-pharmacological measures are insufficient to normalize blood pressure, MH may benefit from pharmacological treatment but no clinical trial has been implemented as yet with the specific purpose of testing this hypothesis. Despite this lack of evidence, the 2013 ESH/ESC guidelines have recommended that in patients with MH also drug treatment should be considered because in patients with MH the risk of adverse outcome is very close to that in sustained hypertension. When ambulatory blood pressure is measured, pharmacological treatment may be modulated according to whether blood pressure is elevated during daytime hours or during sleep.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24500867What 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.