ArticleThe Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology2020
The use of automated sequential blood pressure in hypertension clinics compared with office and ambulatory blood pressure measurements.
Article in The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOffice blood pressure (OBP) measurement is the most common method of blood pressure measurement. However, it is associated with several pitfalls as white coat effect and masked hypertension. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is usually used for diagnosis of hypertension and elimination of white coat effect. This study aimed to assess the correlation and degree of agreement of the automated sequential blood pressure (ASqBP) with OBP and ABPM. Patients presented to hypertension clinic were included. Each patient had his blood pressure recorded by three methods: OBP using a digital sphygmomanometer device, unattended ASqBP using sequential BP devices with recording of the readings over 30 min, and ABPM that was performed within 48 h of office visit using portable BP devices with BP recording over 24 h.
resultsWe recruited 64 patients (age 50.0 ± 15.0 years and female gender 53.1%). We found a strong positive correlation between ASqBP and OBP readings (r 0.81 for SBP and 0.83 for DBP, p < 0.001). We also found a strong positive correlation between ASqBP and ABPM readings (r 0.74, p < 0.001). The ASqBP readings were lower than OBP (137.0 ± 16.8/86.4 ± 13.8 vs. 142.7 ± 15.5/88.5 ± 12.3) and close to ABPM readings (average 24 h, 134.0 ± 15.4/88.5 ± 12.3, and daytime, 135.8 ± 15.7/82.1 ± 13.7). For SBP readings, there was moderate agreement between ASqBP and AMBP (both average and daytime). For DBP readings, there was fair agreement between ASqBP and AMBP (both average and daytime).
conclusionASqBP measurement has good correlation with OBP and ABPM readings. Unattended automated office pressure has moderate degree of agreement with ABPM for the SBP& fair degree of agreement for the DBP. It can be used in the hypertension clinics to eliminate the problems of white coat effect and marked BP variability.
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.