Trial reportHypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension2019
Evaluation of the Omron HEM-907 automated blood pressure device: comparison with office and ambulatory blood pressure readings.
Trial report in Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Haemodynamic changes from prepregnancy to very early pregnancy among women planning to conceive in Southwestern Uganda.Journal of hypertension · 2025Article
- Association of an Automated Blood Pressure Measurement Quality Improvement Program With Terminal Digit Preference and Recorded Mean Blood Pressure in 11 Clinics.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- Comparative accuracies of automated and manual office blood pressure measurements in a Chinese population.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2022Article
- Comparison between unattended automated office blood pressure and conventional office blood pressure under the environment of health checkup among Japanese general population.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2020Article
- Cohort profile: social well-being and determinants of health study (SWADES), Kerala, India.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Unattended Automated Office Blood Pressure Measurement in Screening for Hypertension in Kenya.Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) · 2019Article
- Comparison of blood pressure values-self-measured at home, measured at an unattended office, and measured at a conventional attended office.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2019Observational
- Automated Office-Based Blood Pressure Measurement: an Overview and Guidance for Implementation in Primary Care.Current hypertension reports · 2019Review
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
Blood pressure (BP) measured in the clinic is subject to the white coat effect and does not always indicate the 'usual' BP. Ambulatory BP is the current gold standard, but remains inconvenient for routine use. Interest in automated BP, where the healthcare professional is absent from the examination room during BP measurement, is growing, as this reduces the white coat effect and yields BP values that are close to ambulatory readings. The aim of this study was to investigate how well automated office BP (AOBP), measured using the Omron HEM-907 device, compares with observed office BP (OOBP, healthcare professional remains in the examination room) and awake ambulatory BP (AABP) measurements. OOBP, AOBP and AABP were measured in 108 participants, with OOBP and AOBP measurements repeated 1 week later, following a standardised protocol. Average BP readings for visit one were 134 ± 18/77 ± 11 for OOBP, 131 ± 16/75 ± 11 for AOBP, and 133 ± 15/82 ± 12 for AABP. On both visits, automated readings were significantly lower than observed readings for both systolic and diastolic BP (P < 0.001 for both). Automated readings were also significantly lower than ambulatory readings, with a mean difference in systolic/diastolic BP of - 2 ± 11/- 7 ± 10 (P < 0.001 for both), with high correlations between the two modalities (r = 0.75 and r = 0.64, for systolic and diastolic BP, respectively, P < 0.001 for both). AOBP measured by the Omron HEM-907 is not associated with a white coat effect, unlike observed readings, and provides reproducible results and good correlations with ambulatory readings. Automated BP measured using the Omron HEM-907 is, therefore, a useful alternative to observed office readings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30374040What 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.