ArticleHypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension2019
Blood pressure cutoffs for white-coat and masked effects in a large population undergoing home blood pressure monitoring.
Article 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 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Brazilian Guidelines for In-office and Out-of-office Blood Pressure Measurement - 2023.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2024Guideline
- Brazilian Guidelines of Hypertension - 2025.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2025Article
- Cutoffs for white-coat and masked blood pressure effects: an ambulatory blood pressure monitoring study.Journal of human hypertension · 2024Article
- Home Blood Pressure Monitoring and Blood Pressure Control in Treated Hypertensives.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2022Article
- Discrepancies in the diagnosis of hypertension in adolescents according to available office and home high blood pressure criteria.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2022Article
- Treated Hypertensive Patients Assessed by Home Blood Pressure Telemonitoring. TeleMRPA Study.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2021Article
- The impact of changing home blood pressure monitoring cutoff from 135/85 to 130/80 mmHg on hypertension phenotypes.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2021Article
- Using CNN and HHT to Predict Blood Pressure Level Based on Photoplethysmography and Its Derivatives.Biosensors · 2021Article
- Recommendations for home blood pressure monitoring in Latin American countries: A Latin American Society of Hypertension position paper.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2020Review
- Impact of hypertension phenotypes on the office and 24-h pulse wave velocity and augmentation index in individuals with or without antihypertensive medication use.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2019Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 10 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The values used to define the presence of white-coat or masked blood pressure (BP) effects are arbitrary. The aim of this study was to investigate the accuracy of several cutoff points based on the difference between office and home BP (ΔBP) values to detect white-coat uncontrolled (WUCH) and masked uncontrolled (MUCH) hypertension, which are phenotypes with adverse prognoses, in a large cohort of treated hypertensive patients. This multicenter cross-sectional study included 6,049 treated hypertensive patients (40% males, mean age 59.1 ± 14.4 years) who underwent office and home BP monitoring. We compared the sensitivity, specificity, area under curve (AUC), and positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values of several ΔBP cutoffs to detect WUCH and MUCH. The 15/9 mmHg cutoff, which reflects a 1.0 standard deviation of the ΔBP, showed the best AUC (0.783, 95% CI = 0.772-0.794) for the detection of WUCH, particularly in individuals with office grade 1 hypertension (AUC = 0.811, 95% CI = 0.793-0.829). The -1/-1 mmHg cutoff, which considers all individuals who had lower systolic or diastolic BP levels in the office than at home, had the highest AUC (0.822, 95% CI = 0.808-0.836) for the detection of MUCH. Both cutoff values also had the best performances for identifying all patients with higher and lower office-than-home BP grades. In conclusion, the 15/9 and -1/-1 mmHg cutoffs showed the best performance for the detection of treated hypertensive patients with WUCH and MUCH, respectively, and therefore might be markers of significant white-coat and masked effects and could be useful for identifying preferential targets for more routine home BP measures.
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.