ArticleHigh blood pressure & cardiovascular prevention : the official journal of the Italian Society of Hypertension2019
The Impact of Measurement Methods on Office Blood Pressure and Management of Hypertension in General Practice.
Article in High blood pressure & cardiovascular prevention : the official journal of the Italian Society of Hypertension, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Revisiting Unattended Versus Attended Automated Office Blood Pressure Measurements: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Pooled it
- Office blood pressure measurement: A comprehensive review.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2021Review
- Intensive blood pressure lowering: a practical review.Clinical hypertension · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe use of unattended automated office blood pressure (uAutoOBP) versus attended automated (aAutoOBP) and manual auscultatory office blood pressure (AuscOBP) measurements is a topic of current controversy.
aimTo evaluate the differences between OBP measurements methods in the general practice (GP) setting.
methodsWe first compared aAutoOBP and uAutoOBP in 42 consecutive patients with hypertension (group 1). Secondly, we compared AuscOBP to uAutoOBP measurements in 133 consecutive patients with hypertension (group 2). In addition, we analyzed the achieved OBP targets as recommended in the 2018 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) guidelines in group 2.
resultsThe mean age of patients in group 1 was 71 years (range 34-89 years, 54.8% females). The aAutoOBP and uAutoOBP systolic (131.7 and 131.6 mmHg) and diastolic (83.4 and 82.4 mmHg) mean values were not significantly different. The patient characteristics in group 2 were similar to group 1. We observed a significant difference between AuscOBP and uAutoOBP measurement for both systolic (149.4 versus 129.5 mm Hg) and diastolic (85.4 versus 81.6 mm Hg, p < 0.0001, respectively). Accordingly, 20.3% and 45.9% of patients reached the overall 2018 ESC/ESH systolic and diastolic OBP targets of < 140/80 mmHg according to AuscOBP and uAutoOBP (p < 0.0001).
conclusionThe attended versus unattended status of automated OBP measurements had no impact on OBP values in GP. However, significantly higher OBP values and lower rates of achieved target OBP were observed by using AuscOBP measurements by physicians in comparison to automated OBP recordings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31705461What 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.