ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2017
Auscultatory versus oscillometric blood pressure measurement in patients with atrial fibrillation and arterial hypertension.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy of automated blood pressure measurements in the presence of atrial fibrillation: systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of human hypertension · 2019Pooled it
- Consistency of Blood Pressure Measurement Methods in Atrial Fibrillation.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2025Article
- Exploring the link between blood pressure variability and atrial fibrillation: current insights and future directions.Journal of human hypertension · 2024Review
- The prevalence of masked hypertension in patients with lone atrial fibrillation: a cross sectional analytical study.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Accuracy of non-invasive blood pressure measurement in patients with atrial fibrillation.Journal of human hypertension · 2022Review
- Intrasession Reliability Analysis for Oscillometric Blood Pressure Method Using a Digital Blood Pressure Monitor in Peruvian Population.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of our study was to investigate the reliability of automated oscillometric blood pressure (BP) monitoring in the presence and absence of atrial fibrillation (AF) in hypertensive patients.
methodsBP was measured and compared in 71 randomly selected patients with AF and arterial hypertension diagnosis, 4 times each by auscultatory and oscillometric (Microlife BP A6 PC with AF detection system) methods.
resultsStudy included 71 patients: 36 males (mean age 67.4 years) and 35 females (70.2 years). At the time of BP measuring procedure, 36 patients were in sinus rhythm (SR) and 35 in AF. In SR patients mean systolic blood pressure (SBP) was 132 ± 17.9 mmHg with auscultatory method (AM), 137.4 ± 19.4 mmHg with oscillometric method (OM); mean diastolic BP was 77.1 ± 10.9 mmHg (AM), 78.5 ± 12.2 mmHg (OM), in AF patients mean SBP was 127.5 ± 15.1 mmHg (AM), 133.6 ± 17.4 mmHg (OM); mean diastolic BP was 81.4 ± 9.9 mmHg (AM), 83.5 ± 11.8 mmHg (OM), p = 0.037. The averages of differences for SBP and DBP in sinus rhythm group were (-5.3 mmHg (95% limits of agreement -27.2 - 16.6)) and (-1.4 mmHg (95% limits of agreement -12.8 - 10.0)), respectively. In patients with AF the averages of differences for SBP and DBP were (-6.1 mmHg (95% limits of agreement -23.9 - 11.7)) and (-2.1 mmHg (95% limits of agreement -12.9 - 8.7)), respectively.
conclusionsThe oscillometric device validated for patients with AF on average gives 5.3 mmHg higher systolic BP values for patients with SR and 6.3 mmHg higher BP values for patients with AF. However, the limits of agreement between two methods reveal wide range of random error rates which is a questionable topic in clinical practice, as it could possibly affect the treatment of arterial hypertension in patients with AF.
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.