ArticleAmerican journal of hypertension2017
Measurement Repeatability of Central and Peripheral Blood Pressures: The ARIC Study.
Article in American journal of hypertension, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- An approach for detecting hemodynamic parameters in the carotid arterial system based on the priori relationship between blood pressure and arterial radius.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2026Article
- Supplements and Drugs Are Associated With Biological Age in a Cohort of Exceptionally Healthy Individuals.Aging cell · 2026Article
- Minimal Detectable Change in Resting Blood Pressure and Cardiorespiratory Fitness: A Secondary Analysis of a Study on School-Based High-Intensity Interval Training Intervention.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCentral systolic and pulse pressures are markers of risk for small vessel disease in the brain and kidneys. The extent to which these markers are reproducible in the setting of population studies is less well established. We estimated short-term repeatability of central systolic and pulse pressures, and those of their peripheral measures for comparison.
methodsParticipants aged 65 years and over (n = 79, 56% women) were drawn from the 2011-2013 examination of the ARIC cohort. Measurements were obtained with automated devices in the supine position, except for conventional sitting pressures, from paired measurements at each of 2 visits separated by 4 to 8 weeks. Three-level variance component models with between-participant, between-visit, and within-visit components estimated reliability metrics.
resultsMean central systolic and pulse pressures were higher than conventional brachial measures, yet their 4 to 8 week measurement repeatability was similar: reliability coefficients were 0.62 (95% confidence interval: 0.49, 0.74) and 0.63 (0.51, 0.76) for central and sitting brachial systolic pressures, and 0.66 (0.54. 0.77) and 0.73 (0.63, 0.82) for their corresponding pulse pressures. Between-participant variation contributed to two-thirds of the short-term repeatability for all measures. Within-visit variation remained uniformly low across visits.
conclusionsOur results indicate that the average of 2 standardized measurements obtained at a single visit can provide reliable estimates of central systolic and pulse pressures. The reliability coefficients of central and peripheral blood pressure measures were comparable. Estimates are presented of minimal detectable change and difference to aid in study design and evaluation of analytic results.
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.