ArticleBMJ open2020
Could the arm blood pressure measured with simultaneous bilateral arm method be used for hypertension diagnosis?
Article in BMJ open, 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, 0 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveSimultaneous bilateral arm blood pressure (BP) measurement (bilateral arm method) is suggested for the first BP measurement in clinical practice, but whether the arm BP measured with bilateral arm method (RA-2) is similar to that with unilateral arm method (RA-1) is unclear.
designQuantitative research, paired sample T-test, Bland-Altman and multivariate linear regression analyses were used.
settingThis study included 295 subjects (18-90 years, 60.0±14.6 years old, 126 males) in the clinic of cardiovascular medicine of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University. They were randomly instructed to one of two BP measurement proposals: (1) right-arm-bilateral arm-right-arm-bilateral arm, or (2) bilateral arm-right-arm-bilateral arm-right-arm to attenuate bias induced by BP measurement order.
participantsFrom June to October of 2019, 295 outpatients (18-90 years, 60.0±14.6 years old, 126 males and 169 females) with sinus rhythm (SR) were enrolled. The exclusion criteria were acute myocardial infarction, congenital heart disease, acute heart failure, syncope, hemiplegia, arrhythmia and pulseless (by palpation). OUTCOME MEASURES: We compared the BP differences between bilateral arm method and unilateral arm method. The difference between RA-2 and RA-1 was calculated as Dif-RA. Data are expressed as means±SD for continuous variables. The percentage increase (PI) was calculated on the formula: (RA-2-RA-1)/RA-1.
resultsThe RA-2 on systolic blood pressure (SBP)/diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was slightly, but statistically higher by 1.2/0.4 mm Hg against the RA-1. Multivariate regression analyses showed that hypertension therapy type was positive impact factor, but RA-1 was negative factor for PI of Dif-RA on SBP, DBP and pulse pressure.
conclusionThe SBP and DBP of right arm measured with bilateral arm method are slightly, but statistically higher (1.2 and 0.4 mm Hg) than those with the unilateral arm BP method.
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.