ArticleJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2018
Blood pressure measurement in special populations and circumstances.
Article in Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 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
- Linking perceived stress and cognitive aging: The influence of blood pressure in Black Americans.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2026Article
- Optimization of Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring during Pregnancy: A Path Toward Risk Stratification Improvement and Management of Hypertensive Disorders.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Review
- Blood pressure in atrial fibrillation and in sinus rhythm during ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: data from the TEMPLAR project.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2024Article
- Home blood pressure monitoring: methodology, clinical relevance and practical application: a 2021 position paper by the Working Group on Blood Pressure Monitoring and Cardiovascular Variability of the European Society of Hypertension.Journal of hypertension · 2021Article
- A literature review and best practice advice for second and third trimester risk stratification, monitoring, and management of pre-eclampsia: Compiled by the Pregnancy and Non-Communicable Diseases Committee of FIGO (the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics).International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2021Review
- Automated Office-Based Blood Pressure Measurement: an Overview and Guidance for Implementation in Primary Care.Current hypertension reports · 2019Review
- Out of Office Blood Pressure Measurement in Pregnancy and the Postpartum Period.Current hypertension reports · 2018Review
- Achieving reliable blood pressure measurements in clinical practice: It's time to meet the challenge.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2018Article
- Blood pressure measurement in special populations and circumstances.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 7 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
According to the established validation protocols, a typical validation study of a blood pressure (BP) monitor includes general population adults with normal or elevated BP. It is recognized, however, that the automated (oscillometric) BP monitors may have different accuracy or uses in some special populations compared with adults in the general population. Thus, an automated BP monitor with proven accuracy in a general population of adults may not be accurate in a special population, and therefore separate validation is needed. Recognized special populations deserving separate validation are those for which there is theoretical, and also clinical evidence, that the accuracy of BP monitors in these groups differs from that in the general population. Young children, pregnant women (including those with preeclampsia), individuals with arm circumference >42 cm, and patients with atrial fibrillation are regarded as special populations. Adolescents, individuals older than 80 years, and patients with end-stage renal disease or diabetes mellitus have also been considered as possible special groups, but there is still inadequate evidence of altered accuracy of BP monitors in these subjects. Validation studies should be performed in special populations and evaluated separately after the BP-measuring device has successfully undergone a validation study in a general population (unless the test device is intended only for a special population). This article discusses issues relating to the measurement of BP and the diagnosis of hypertension in selected special populations, as well as in low-resource settings, where a simplified yet efficient evaluation strategy is necessary.
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.