Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30374040›Full record

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.

Lauren D'Sa, Nipuna Senaratne, Jean Woodcock-Smith, Karen M Miles, Ian B Wilkinson, Carmel M McEniery

Abstract readClinical TrialComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Comparative accuracies of automated and manual office blood pressure measurements in a Chinese population.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2022
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Review
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

6 authors.

Lauren D'SaExperimental Medicine and Immunotherapeutics, University of Cambridge, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Box 98, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK.
Nipuna SenaratneExperimental Medicine and Immunotherapeutics, University of Cambridge, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Box 98, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK.
Jean Woodcock-SmithExperimental Medicine and Immunotherapeutics, University of Cambridge, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Box 98, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK.
Karen M MilesExperimental Medicine and Immunotherapeutics, University of Cambridge, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Box 98, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK.
Ian B WilkinsonExperimental Medicine and Immunotherapeutics, University of Cambridge, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Box 98, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK.
Carmel M McEnieryExperimental Medicine and Immunotherapeutics, University of Cambridge, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Box 98, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK. cmm41@cam.ac.uk.

Funding

British Heart Foundation FS/07/001/21990British Heart Foundation FS/12/33/29561British Heart Foundation FS/12/8/29377
6 · The paper itself

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

Blood Pressure DeterminationAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansHypertensionMaleMiddle AgedRandom AllocationYoung AdultAmbulatory blood pressureAutomated blood pressureHypertensionOMRON HEM-907

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.