Trial reportJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2018
Comparison of automated clinical and research blood pressure measurements: Implications for clinical practice and trial design.
Trial report 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 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Determination of optimal on-treatment diastolic blood pressure range using automated measurements in subjects with cardiovascular disease-Analysis of a SPRINT trial subpopulation.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2019Trial
- Comparison of automated clinical and research blood pressure measurements: Implications for clinical practice and trial design.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2018Trial
- Effect of Systolic Blood Pressure Measurement Error on the Cost-Effectiveness of Intensive Blood Pressure Targets.Annals of internal medicine · 2025Article
- Blood Pressure Variability and Risk of Cardiovascular Events and Mortality in Real-World Clinical Settings.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Article
- Clinical Impact of 3- Vs. 5-Minute Delay and 30- Vs. 60-Second Intervals on Unattended Automated Office Blood Pressure Measurements.American journal of hypertension · 2025Article
- Zero End-Digit Preference in Blood Pressure and Implications for Cardiovascular Disease Risk Prediction-A Study in New Zealand.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Absolute cardiovascular risk assessment using 'real world' clinic blood pressures compared to standardized unobserved and ambulatory methods: an observational study.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2024Observational
- Comparison of Blood Pressure Measurements from Clinical Practice and a Research Study At Kaiser Permanente Southern California.American journal of hypertension · 2023Article
- Association of blood pressure variability during acute care hospitalization and incident dementia.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Article
- Variability independent of mean blood pressure as a real-world measure of cardiovascular risk.EClinicalMedicine · 2022Article
- Potential impact of systematic and random errors in blood pressure measurement on the prevalence of high office blood pressure in the United States.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2022Article
- Impact of Clinic-Based Blood Pressure Approaches on Blood Pressure Measurement.American journal of hypertension · 2020Article
- Office blood pressure measurement types: Different methodology-Different clinical conclusions.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
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Discrepancies between clinic and research blood pressure (BP) measurements lead to uncertainties in translating hypertension management guidelines into practice. We assessed the concordance between standardized automated clinic BP, from a primary care clinic, and research BP, from a randomized trial conducted at the same site. Mean single-visit clinic BP was higher by 4.4/3.8 mm Hg (P = 0.007/<0.001). Concordance in systolic BP (SBP) improved with closer proximity of measurements (difference = 2.5 mm Hg, P = 0.21 for visits within 7 days), but not averaging across multiple visits (difference =5.1(9.2) mm Hg; P < 0.001). This discrepancy was greater among female participants. Clinic-based difference in SBP between two visits was more variable than research-based change (SD = 19.6 vs 14.0; P = 0.002); a 2-arm trial using clinic measurements would need 95% more participants to achieve comparable power. Implementation of a bundled standardization intervention decreased discrepancies between clinic and research BP, compared to prior reports. However, clinic measurements remained higher and more variable, suggesting treatment to research-based targets may lead to overtreatment and using clinic BP approximately halves power in trials.
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.