Observational studyHypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension2017
Standing orthostatic blood pressure measurements cannot be replaced by sitting measurements.
Observational study in Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of intensive blood pressure treatment on orthostatic hypertension: individual level meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Pooled it
- Prevalence of initial orthostatic hypotension in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Age and ageing · 2021Pooled it
- A cross-sectional nationwide survey of guideline based syncope units in the Netherlands: the SU-19 score-a novel validation for best practices.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2023Article
- Consensus statement on the definition of orthostatic hypertension endorsed by the American Autonomic Society and the Japanese Society of Hypertension.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2023Article
- Consensus statement on the definition of orthostatic hypertension endorsed by the American Autonomic Society and the Japanese Society of Hypertension.Clinical autonomic research : official journal of the Clinical Autonomic Research Society · 2023Review
- Initial orthostatic hypotension and orthostatic intolerance symptom prevalence in older adults: A systematic review.International Journal of Cardiology. Hypertension · 2021Review
- Comparison of the Active Sitting Test and Head-Up Tilt Test for Diagnosis of Postural Tachycardia Syndrome in Children and Adolescents.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2021Article
- Detection of orthostatic hypotension with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in parkinson's disease.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese 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
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As many elderly patients are not able to stand for several minutes, sitting orthostatic blood pressure (BP) measurements are sometimes used as an alternative. We aimed to investigate the difference in BP response and orthostatic hypotension (OH) prevalence between the standard postural change to the sitting and the standing position in a cross-sectional observational study. BP was measured with a continuous BP measurement device during two postural changes, from supine to the sitting and from supine to the standing position. Linear mixed models were used to investigate the differences in changes (Δ) of systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) between the two postural changes. The prevalence and the positive and negative proportions of agreement of OH were calculated of the two postural changes. One hundred and four patients with a mean age of 69 years were included. ΔSBP was significantly larger in the standing position compared with the sitting between 0 and 44 s. ΔDBP was significantly larger in the sitting position compared with the standing 75-224 s after postural change. The prevalence of OH was 66.3% (95% confidence interval (CI) 57.2, 75.4) in the standing position and 67.3% (95% CI 58.3, 76.3) in the sitting position. The positive proportion of agreement was 74.8% and the negative proportion of agreement was 49.3%. A clear difference was seen in BP response between the two postural changes. Although no significant difference in prevalence of OH was observed, the positive and negative proportion of agreement of the prevalence of OH were poor to moderate, which indicates a different outcome between both postural changes.
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.