Trial reportJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2019
Comparison of manual and automated auscultatory blood pressure during graded exercise among people with type 2 diabetes.
Trial report in Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of manual and automated auscultatory blood pressure during graded exercise among people with type 2 diabetes.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2019Trial
- [Design and validation of an automated testing system for essential performance parameters of ventilators].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2025Article
- Assessing the strengths and limitations of non-invasive blood pressure measurement.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2023Article
- A new and specific automated blood pressure device for exercise stress testing.Journal of human hypertension · 2023Article
- The Identification and Management of High Blood Pressure Using Exercise Blood Pressure: Current Evidence and Practical Guidance.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Review
- Corrigendum.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedCorrigendum.2020
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Manual measurement of blood pressure (BP) during exercise testing is the recommended standard. Automated measurement of BP is an alternative method used during clinical exercise testing, but there is little data comparing manual and automated BP in this setting. The aim of this study was to determine the concordance between manual and automated BP during a standard clinical treadmill exercise test. 416 participants (66 ± 5 years; 54% male) completed a Bruce treadmill exercise test at baseline or follow-up within a clinical trial of participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Manual and automated BP were measured simultaneously at each exercise test stage. Manual BP was measured by a technician blinded to automated BP values (Tango+, Suntech). Concordance between manual and automated BP was assessed using mean differences and intraclass correlations (ICC). Concordance between manual and automated BP across all exercise stages was excellent for systolic BP (overall mean difference: 3 ± 11 mm Hg, P = .598; ICC = 0.964 [95% CI 0.942-0.977] and pulse pressure (overall mean difference: 2 ± 14 mm Hg, P = .595; ICC = 0.934 [95% CI 0.899-0.956]). Concordance between manual and automated diastolic BP across all exercise stages was moderate-to-good (overall mean difference: 1 ± 9 mm Hg, P = .905; ICC = 0.784 [95% CI 0.672-0.858]). Automated BP using the Tango + device is concordant with manual BP during early stages of a standard clinical exercise test. Thus, this automated method may be a suitable alternative to manual measurement of BP during clinical exercise testing.
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.