Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30725172›Full record

ArticleClinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society2019

Impact of single-visit American versus European office blood pressure measurement procedure on individual blood pressure classification: a cross-sectional study.

Annina S Vischer, Thenral Socrates, Clemens Winterhalder, Jens Eckstein, Michael Mayr, Thilo Burkard

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Recurrent infective endocarditis versus first-time infective endocarditis after heart valve surgery.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2020
    Article
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.

Annina S VischerMedical Outpatient Department, ESH Hypertension Center of Excellence, University Hospital Basel, Petersgraben 4, 4031, Basel, Switzerland. annina.vischer@usb.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5188-1723
Thenral SocratesMedical Outpatient Department, ESH Hypertension Center of Excellence, University Hospital Basel, Petersgraben 4, 4031, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9619-5460
Clemens WinterhalderDepartment of Internal Medicine, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Jens EcksteinDepartment of Internal Medicine, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1693-9851
Michael MayrMedical Outpatient Department, ESH Hypertension Center of Excellence, University Hospital Basel, Petersgraben 4, 4031, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1962-8186
Thilo BurkardMedical Outpatient Department, ESH Hypertension Center of Excellence, University Hospital Basel, Petersgraben 4, 4031, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6373-9820

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesRecently, ACC/AHA and ESC/ESH guidelines defined different office blood pressure measurement (OBPM) procedures and ranges. We aimed to describe the effect of the different methods to calculate OBPM on BP classification. METHODS AND

resultsFour standardised OBPM were performed in 802 patients within a single visit. BP values were calculated (EUR-/US-BPM) and categorised (EUR-/US-Ranges) according to ACC/AHA and ESC/ESH guidelines. Comparing the BPM procedures, the mean absolute difference of systolic and diastolic BP was 4 (SD ± 5) and 3 (SD ± 3) and a difference ≥ 5 mmHg was found in 35% and 16%, respectively. There was an increase of grade 1/2 arterial hypertension of 87% and 120% comparing BP values categorised according to US-Ranges with EUR-Ranges after applying EUR- or US-BPM to all (p < 0.0001), of 25% and 6% comparing BP values calculated according to US-BPM with EUR-BPM applying EUR- or US-Ranges to all (p = 0.006 and p = 0.17), and of 134% comparing US-Ranges/US-BPM with EUR-Ranges/EUR-BPM (p < 0.0001), respectively. Overall, 16% were reclassified to higher categories when applying US-BPM, and 42-45% of patients classified as "high normal" applying EUR-BPM procedures were reclassified when applying US-BPM procedure, 76-77% of them to "hypertensive" categories.

conclusionBesides the effect of the redefinition of BP categories by ACC/AHA, the calculation method of US-BPM compared to EUR-BPM leads to a further relevant increase of patients classified as "hypertensive". In addition to the definition of uniform outcome-oriented target BP values, there is an urgent need for a universal definition of an OBPM procedure as prerequisite for proper BP classification and patient management.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicAdultBlood PressureBlood Pressure DeterminationCross-Sectional StudiesEuropeFemaleHumansHypertensionMaleMiddle AgedUnited StatesBlood pressureBlood pressure determinationEpidemiologyHypertensionMethodologyPrevalence

Identifiers

PMID30725172

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.