Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27168473›Full record

ReviewArquivos brasileiros de cardiologia2016

Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring: Five Decades of More Light and Less Shadows.

Fernando Nobre, Décio Mion Junior

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. The circadian blood pressure variability: There is a signal in the noise.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2019
    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

2 authors.

Fernando NobreFaculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.
Décio Mion JuniorFaculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, SP, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Casual blood pressure measurements have been extensively questioned over the last five decades. A significant percentage of patients have different blood pressure readings when examined in the office or outside it. For this reason, a change in the paradigm of the best manner to assess blood pressure has been observed. The method that has been most widely used is the Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring - ABPM. The method allows recording blood pressure measures in 24 hours and evaluating various parameters such as mean BP, pressure loads, areas under the curve, variations between daytime and nighttime, pulse pressure variability etc. Blood pressure measurements obtained by ABPM are better correlated, for example, with the risks of hypertension. The main indications for ABPM are: suspected white coat hypertension and masked hypertension, evaluation of the efficacy of the antihypertensive therapy in 24 hours, and evaluation of symptoms. There is increasing evidence that the use of ABPM has contributed to the assessment of blood pressure behaviors, establishment of diagnoses, prognosis and the efficacy of antihypertensive therapy. There is no doubt that the study of 24-hour blood pressure behavior and its variations by ABPM has brought more light and less darkness to the field, which justifies the title of this review.

Indexed as

Blood Pressure Monitoring, AmbulatoryAntihypertensive AgentsBlood PressureBlood Pressure DeterminationBrazilHumansHypertensionMasked HypertensionPractice Guidelines as TopicSocieties, MedicalTime FactorsWhite Coat HypertensionAntihypertensive Agents

Identifiers

PMID27168473
PMCPMC4940152

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.