ArticleJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2016
Nonadherence to Recommended Guidelines for Blood Pressure Measurement.
Article in Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Blood pressure variability predicts poor outcomes in acute stroke patients without thrombolysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of neurology · 2024Pooled it
- Acceptability and Adherence to Home, Kiosk, and Clinic Blood Pressure Measurement Compared to 24-H Ambulatory Monitoring.Journal of general internal medicine · 2023Trial
- Accuracy of abbreviated protocols for unattended automated office blood pressure measurements, a retrospective study.PloS one · 2021Trial
- Which Systolic Blood Pressure Measure Is Most Important for Determining Cardiovascular Risk: Seated or Supine Blood Pressure?Current hypertension reports · 2025Review
- Automated office blood pressure measurement: a Hypertension Australia and National Hypertension Taskforce of Australia position statement.Journal of hypertension · 2025Article
- Within-Person Blood Pressure Variability During Hospitalization and Clinical Outcomes Following First-Ever Acute Ischemic Stroke.American journal of hypertension · 2023Article
- Lurking in plain sight: Hypertension awareness and treatment among New York City taxi/for-hire vehicle drivers.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2020Article
- Home Blood Pressure Monitoring in Cases of Clinical Uncertainty to Differentiate Appropriate Inaction From Therapeutic Inertia.Annals of family medicine · 2020Article
- Implementing Automated Office Blood Pressure Measurement.Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) · 2019Review
- Home sphygmomanometers can help in the control of blood pressure: a nationwide field survey.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2018Article
- Effect of blood pressure and total cholesterol measurement on risk prediction using the Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE).BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2018Article
- Understanding short-term blood-pressure-variability phenotypes: from concept to clinical practice.International journal of general medicine · 2018Review
- Doctors' Knowledge of Hypertension Guidelines Recommendations Reflected in Their Practice.International journal of hypertension · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accuracy of blood pressure readings, both in the physician's office and at home, is crucial in properly managing hypertension. Few studies have investigated adherence to measurement guidelines. This study focused on two important aspects of blood pressure measurement: waiting time before measurement and number of readings taken. A total of 103 patients completed self-report questionnaires about office and home blood pressure measurements, with 77% reporting that physician measurements were obtained without waiting, and 56% reporting that only one reading was obtained. The proportions were even higher when measured by a nurse/technician, 96% and 81%, respectively. Home readings were taken without waiting by 60%, and 40% reported taking only a single reading. Most patients received no measurement instructions. Nonadherence to measurement guidelines is common, and may be affecting the validity of readings obtained both in physicians' offices and at home, with significant and potentially harmful effects on treatment decisions.
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.