Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32951360›Full record

Trial reportJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2020

Attended vs unattended systolic blood pressure measurement: A randomized comparison in patients with cardiovascular disease.

Ellen C Keeley, Matthew Villanueva, Yiqing E Chen, Yan Gong, Eileen M Handberg, Steven M Smith, Carl J Pepine, Rhonda M Cooper-DeHoff

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report 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 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Attended automated office blood pressure re-visited.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ellen C KeeleyDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Matthew VillanuevaDepartment of Pharmacotherapy and Translational Research, College of Pharmacy, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Yiqing E ChenDepartment of Pharmacotherapy and Translational Research, College of Pharmacy, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Yan GongDepartment of Pharmacotherapy and Translational Research, College of Pharmacy, Gainesville, FL, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8218-1620
Eileen M HandbergDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Steven M SmithDepartment of Pharmacotherapy and Translational Research, College of Pharmacy, Gainesville, FL, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0201-839X
Carl J PepineDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Rhonda M Cooper-DeHoffDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5198-130X
Florida College · USAmerican Association of Colleges of Pharmacy · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent clinical guidelines recommend lower blood pressure (BP) goals for most patients, and recent trends have favored use of automated unattended BP measurements in the office setting to minimize observer error and white-coat effects. Patients attending a routinely scheduled CVD clinic visit were prospectively randomized to BP measured using an attended, followed by an unattended method, or vice versa, after a controlled rest period. All study BP measurements were obtained in triplicate using the automated Omron HEM-907XL BP monitor, and averaged. The outcome was difference in SBP. Routinely measured clinic BP from the same visit was extracted from the medical record, and compared with attended and unattended BP. A total of 102 patients were randomized, and mean age was 63 years, 52% female and 75% Caucasian. Attended and unattended SBP was 125.4 ± 20.4 and 122.6 ± 21.0 mm Hg, mean ± SD, respectively. Routine clinic SBP was 130.6 ± 23.6 mm Hg. Attended SBP was 2.7 mm Hg higher than the unattended measurement (95% CI 1.3-4.1; P = .0002). Routine clinic SBP was 5.2 mm Hg higher than attended SBP (95% CI 2.4-8.0; P = .0003) and 8.0 mm Hg higher than unattended SBP (95% CI 5.4-10.5; P < .0001). Attended measurement of BP is significantly higher than unattended measurement and the difference is physiologically meaningful, even in a CVD cohort with generally well-controlled hypertension. Furthermore, routine clinic SBP substantially overestimates both attended and unattended automated SBP, with important implications for treatment decisions like dose and/or drug escalation.

Indexed as

HypertensionBlood PressureBlood Pressure DeterminationBlood Pressure Monitoring, AmbulatoryFemaleHumansMaleMiddle Agedblood pressure measurementcardiovascular diseasehypertension

Identifiers

PMID32951360
PMCPMC8029864
OpenAlexW3087394277

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.