Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31351470›Full record

ReviewBMC nephrology2019

Ambulatory monitoring unmasks hypertension among kidney transplant patients: single center experience and review of the literature.

Eitan Gluskin, Keren Tzukert, Irit Mor-Yosef Levi, Olga Gotsman, Itamar Sagiv, Roy Abel, Aharon Bloch, Dvorah Rubinger, Michal Aharon, Michal Dranitzki Elhalel and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC nephrology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Eitan GluskinDepartment of Nephrology and Hypertension, Hadassah - Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel.
Keren TzukertDepartment of Nephrology and Hypertension, Hadassah - Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel.
Irit Mor-Yosef LeviDepartment of Nephrology and Hypertension, Hadassah - Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel.
Olga GotsmanDepartment of Nephrology and Hypertension, Hadassah - Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel.
Itamar SagivDepartment of Nephrology and Hypertension, Hadassah - Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel.
Roy AbelDepartment of Nephrology and Hypertension, Hadassah - Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel.
Aharon BlochDepartment of Nephrology and Hypertension, Hadassah - Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel.
Dvorah RubingerDepartment of Nephrology and Hypertension, Hadassah - Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel.
Michal AharonDepartment of Nephrology and Hypertension, Hadassah - Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel.
Michal Dranitzki ElhalelDepartment of Nephrology and Hypertension, Hadassah - Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel.
Iddo Z Ben-DovDepartment of Nephrology and Hypertension, Hadassah - Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel. iddo@hadassah.org.il.ORCID 0000-0002-9180-3604
Hadassah Medical Center · IL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDisagreements between clinic and ambulatory blood pressure (BP) measurements are well-described in the general population. Though hypertension is frequent in renal transplant recipients, only a few studies address the clinic-ambulatory discordance in this population. We aimed to describe the difference between clinic and ambulatory BP in kidney transplant patients at our institution.

methodsWe compared the clinic and ambulatory BP of 76 adult recipients of a kidney allograft followed at our transplant center and investigated the difference between these methods, considering confounding by demographic and clinical variables.

resultsClinic systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) were 128 ± 13/79 ± 9 mmHg. Awake SBP and DBP were 147 ± 18/85 ± 10 mmHg. The clinic-minus-awake SBP and DBP differences were - 18 and - 6 mmHg, respectively. The negative clinic-awake ΔSBP was more pronounced at age > 60 years (p = 0.026) and with tacrolimus use compared to cyclosporine (p = 0.046). Sleep SBP and DBP were 139 ± 21/78 ± 11 mmHg. A non-dipping sleep BP pattern was noted in 73% of patients and was associated with tacrolimus use (p = 0.020).

conclusionsOur findings suggest pervasive underestimation of BP when measured in the kidney transplant clinic, emphasizes the high frequency of a non-dipping pattern in this population and calls for liberal use of ambulatory BP monitoring to detect and manage hypertension.

Indexed as

Blood Pressure Monitoring, AmbulatoryKidney TransplantationAdultAgedHumansHypertensionMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsAmbulatory blood pressure monitoringKidney transplantation, calcineurin inhibitors, cyclosporine, tacrolimusMasked hypertensionNon-dipping

Identifiers

PMID31351470
PMCPMC6661097
OpenAlexW2964808658

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.