ArticleJournal of human hypertension2015
Should the first blood pressure reading be discarded?
Article in Journal of human hypertension, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pediatric hypertension prevalence with 1 vs. 2 vs. 3 within-visit blood pressure readings (NHANES 2013-2020).Journal of human hypertension · 2026Article
- Alerting reaction of blood pressure and risk of mortality in an elderly Chinese population.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2026Article
- Age-Dependent Decline in Common Femoral Artery Flow-Mediated Dilation and Wall Shear Stress in Healthy Subjects.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Association of ambulatory blood pressure with coronary microvascular and cardiac dysfunction in asymptomatic type 2 diabetes.Cardiovascular diabetology · 2022Article
- Article
- Epidural stimulation with locomotor training ameliorates unstable blood pressure after tetraplegia. A case report.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2022Article
- Blood pressure measurement protocol determines hypertension phenotypes in a Middle Eastern population.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We evaluated the consequences of excluding the first of three blood pressure (BP) readings in different settings: a random population sample (POS, n=1525), a general practice office (GPO, n=942) and a specialized hypertension center (SHC, n=462). Differences between systolic and diastolic BP (SBP and DBP) estimates obtained including and excluding the first reading were compared and their correlation with ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) was estimated. The samples were divided into quartiles according to the difference between the third and the first SBP (3-1ΔSBP). SBP decreased through sequential readings, 3-1ΔSBP was -5.5 ± 9.7 mm Hg (P<0.001), -5.1 ± 10.4 mm Hg (P<0.001) and -6.1 ± 9.3 mm Hg (P<0.001) for POS, GPO and SHC, respectively. However, individuals included in the top quartile of 3-1ΔSBP showed their highest values on the third reading. The mean SBP estimate was significantly higher excluding the first reading (P<0.001), but the differences among both approaches were small (1.5-1.6 mm g). Moreover, the correlation between SBP values including and excluding the first reading and daytime ABPM were comparable (r = 0.69 and 0.68, respectively). Similar results were observed for DBP. In conclusion, our study does not support the notion of discarding the first BP measurement and suggests that it should be measured repeatedly, regardless the first value.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25339293What 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.