ArticleJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2020
Overview of blood pressure measurement by Brazilian health professionals.
Article in Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Overview of blood pressure measurement by Brazilian health professionals.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although automated monitors for blood pressure (BP) measurement are used increasingly worldwide, understanding of how such devices are used in Brazil is low. This study analyzed the status of BP measurement by Brazilian health professionals. A questionnaire regarding experience with BP measurement was sent electronically to Brazilian nurses, nursing assistants, and doctors. It had 2004 responses. Previous experience with use of automated monitors was most frequent in men (71.2%), nursing technicians (65.5%), specialists (61.1%), secondary care (71.9%), emergency care (70.6%), or the private sector (66.3%). The least complied aspects of the standardized measurement protocol were availability of various cuff sizes (53.9% and 72.9% for auscultatory and oscillometric methods, respectively) and proper calibration checks (21.5% and 46.8% for auscultatory and oscillometric methods, respectively). Brazilian health professionals report not adequately performing all the necessary aspects to measure BP in accordance with the standardized protocol in both methods, but mainly regarding the oscillometric.
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.