Observational studyHypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension2016
Home blood pressure and cardiovascular risk in treated hypertensive patients: the prognostic value of the first and second measurements and the difference between them in the HONEST study.
Observational study in Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimal schedule of home blood-pressure measurements for the diagnosis of hypertension.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2018Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hypertension guidelines recommend using the average of two home blood pressure (HBP) measurements obtained on one occasion to monitor blood pressure. We studied the prognostic value of the first and second measurements or their average value during the follow-up period, as well as the relationships among the difference between the first and second HBP measurements and the prognosis using data from the HONEST (HBP measurement with Olmesartan-Naive patients to Establish Standard Target blood pressure) study. During the mean 2.02 years follow-up, 280 patients had cardiovascular events. Hazard ratios (HRs) for cardiovascular events for each 1 mm Hg increase in the first, second and averaged morning home systolic blood pressure (MHSBP) were similar. Hazards were significantly higher in patients with a large difference between the first and second MHSBP (ΔMHSBP) of <-5 mm Hg (HR: 2.12) or ⩾5 mm Hg (HR: 1.44) compared with those with a small ΔMHSBP of ⩾-5 to <5 mm Hg using the Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for the averaged MHSBP during the follow-up and other risk factors. Hazards in patients with an averaged MHSBP ⩾145 mmHg and a small ΔMHSBP (HR: 3.11), those with an averaged MHSBP ⩾125 to <145 mm Hg and a large ΔMHSBP (HR: 1.91) and those with an averaged MHSBP ⩾145 mm Hg and a large ΔMHSBP (HR: 4.63) were higher compared with those with an averaged MHSBP <125 mm Hg and a small ΔMHSBP. In conclusion, the first, second and averaged MHSBP measurements have similar prognostic values. Prognosis is worse for patients with a large ΔMHSBP. In clinical practice, it would be prudent to measure the HBP two times and use the average HBP of two measurements obtained on one occasion with particular attention to patients with a large ΔMHSBP.
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.