Trial reportJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2020
Attended vs unattended systolic blood pressure measurement: A randomized comparison in patients with cardiovascular disease.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Revisiting Unattended Versus Attended Automated Office Blood Pressure Measurements: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of unattended, attended and routine clinic systolic blood pressure measurements and determinants of blood pressure difference between attended and unattended BP.Journal of human hypertension · 2026Trial
- Advanced Practice Nurse Intervention Versus Usual Care for Hypertension Control: A Pilot Open-Label Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2025Trial
- Attended vs unattended systolic blood pressure measurement: A randomized comparison in patients with cardiovascular disease.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2020Trial
- Attended automated office blood pressure re-visited.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.