Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30262831›Full record

ReviewHypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension2018

Clinical implication of visit-to-visit blood pressure variability.

Satoshi Hoshide

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Noninvasive method to validate the variability of blood pressure during arrhythmias.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2022
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Regarding the article "Clinical implication of visit-to-visit blood pressure variability".Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2019
    Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Satoshi HoshideDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, Jichi Medical University School of Medicine, Tochigi, Japan. hoshide@jichi.ac.jp.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In clinical practice, out-of-office blood pressure (BP) measurements, i.e., ambulatory BP monitoring and home BP measurement, provide superior results, reproducibility, and evaluation of the effect of antihypertensive drugs compared with office BP measurement. However, following a report on the clinical impact of visit-to-visit BP variability, in addition to the results of a clinical trial, office BP measurement has regained prominence in clinical and research settings. Many reports have been published on the association between visit-to-visit BP variability and cardiovascular outcomes. However, other indexes of BP variability besides visit-to-visit BP variability can be evaluated in the office. In addition, methodology has been developed for calculation of visit-to-visit BP variability. Although most studies have shown a positive association between visit-to-visit BP variability and cardiovascular outcomes, this association was not observed in some studies. Further research is still needed for clarification.

Indexed as

Blood Pressure DeterminationOffice VisitsBlood PressureHumansCardiovascular outcomeMethodologyVisit-to-visit blood pressure variability

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.