Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29142989›Full record

ArticleKidney international reports2017

Recommended Standards for Assessing Blood Pressure in Human Research Where Blood Pressure or Hypertension Is a Major Focus.

TRUE Consortium

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Kidney international reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 4 countries.

TRUE Consortium
British Cardiovascular Society · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAlthough inaccurate, nonreproducible blood pressure values can result from nonstandardized assessments, recommended approaches to standardize blood pressure measurement are often not followed in research studies.

methodsAn expert consensus of national and international health and scientific organizations developed recommended minimum standards for assessing blood pressure in research subjects where: (i) blood pressure or hypertension is a major endpoint, or (ii) blood pressure is likely a major mediator of the research outcome.

resultsMinimum research standards are presented for training of observers, technical aspects of assessing blood pressure, and equipment for both adults and children. DISCUSSION: The standards are based on prior recommendations, some of which did not conform to current evidence-based methods. All new research should require adherence to these minimum standards on the patient populations described above. Readers need to use caution in interpreting studies if the standards are not met in the defined populations.

Indexed as

cardiovascular diseasecongestive heart failure

Identifiers

PMID29142989
PMCPMC5678635
OpenAlexW4235424417

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.