Trial reportBlood pressure monitoring2016
Comparison of blood pressure measurements obtained in the home setting: analysis of the Health Measures at Home Study.
Trial report in Blood pressure monitoring, 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and validation of a cuff size prediction model for pediatric blood pressure measurement outside the office.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2026Article
- Mean Blood Pressure of the General Population with the Mean of Three Measurements Versus the Mean of the Second and Third Measurements. Ricarto Study.High blood pressure & cardiovascular prevention : the official journal of the Italian Society of Hypertension · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAutomated blood pressure (BP) devices have been used in the home for self-management purposes and are increasingly being used in population-based research. Although these devices are convenient and affordable and may be used by inexperienced lay personnel, the potential impact of an examiner's skill level on the results needs to be evaluated quantitatively. The aim of this study was to compare BP measurements obtained in a home setting by personnel with healthcare experience with those obtained by personnel without healthcare experience. In addition, the percent agreement in high blood pressure (HBP) classification between the home BP measurement by the field interviewer (FI) and measurements obtained in a standardized environment was examined.
methodsThe Health Measures at Home Study was a pilot study carried out among 128 adult participants recruited from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. The Health Measures at Home Study provided the opportunity to compare the BP values obtained with an automated device in a home setting by both experienced health technicians (HTs) with those obtained by FIs who had no healthcare experience. Differences between measurements obtained by the HT and measurements obtained by the FI were assessed using paired t-tests, Pearson's correlations, and Bland-Altman plots. Percent agreement and κ-statistics were used to assess agreement in HBP classification between examiners in the home. Measurements obtained by the FI were also compared with those obtained in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey mobile exam center (MEC) by a physician using percent agreement and κ-statistics.
resultsThere was a high correlation in both systolic blood pressure (SBP; r=0.903) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP; r=0.894) between measurements obtained by HTs and those obtained by FIs. The mean SBP and DBP obtained by the FIs (SBP, 119.0±14.4 mmHg; DBP, 71.9±9.8 mmHg) were significantly higher than the HT measurements (SBP, 117.0±12.7 mmHg; DBP, 69.9.9±9.2 mmHg). In the home, the FI classified 11.7% as having HBP, whereas the HT classified 7.0%. The percent of individuals classified as having HBP by the physician in the MEC was 10.2% of the participants.
conclusionOperationally, FIs could take BP measurements in the home; however, there were some differences between measurements obtained by the FI and HT. The absolute difference between measurements obtained by the FI and those obtained by the HT in the home showed that measurements obtained by the FI tended to be higher than the HT, but the magnitude of these differences was less than 5 mmHg. The HT classified 7.0% of HBP whereas the FI classified 11.7% of HBP. Similarly, the FI and the MEC physician classified a different percent of individuals with HBP. Further investigation is warranted to determine the cause of these small but significant absolute differences between measurements obtained by the FI and HT.
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.