SynthesisBMC cardiovascular disorders2020
Diagnostic performance of clinic and home blood pressure measurements compared with ambulatory blood pressure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic accuracy of mercurial versus digital blood pressure measurement devices: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2022Pooled it
- Hypertension With High-Risk Features in Cryptogenic Stroke: An Exploratory Analysis of the ARCADIA Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA neurology · 2026Trial
- Concordance between awake blood pressure on home and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in older adults.American journal of hypertension · 2026Article
- Ambulatory blood pressure levels in individuals with uncontrolled clinic hypertension across Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2024Article
- Review
- Comparison of Office Blood Pressure, Automated Unattended Office Blood Pressure, Home Blood Pressure, and 24-Hour Ambulatory Blood Pressure Measurements.Journal of Korean medical science · 2023Article
- EBM BLS: Home Blood Pressure Measurement Is an Accurate Method for Diagnosing Hypertension.Journal of general internal medicine · 2023Article
- The importance of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring for diagnosing masked hypertension in patients with renal parenchymal scarring.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2023Article
- Blood pressure dynamics during home blood pressure monitoring with a digital blood pressure coach-a prospective analysis of individual user data.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- Association of urine phthalate metabolites, bisphenol A levels and serum electrolytes with 24-h blood pressure profile in adolescents.BMC nephrology · 2022Article
- Comparison of intraoperative arterial blood pressure lability during general anaesthesia in masked, uncontrolled hypertensive and adequately controlled hypertensive patients: a prospective observational study.Anaesthesiology intensive therapy · 2022Observational
- Home blood pressure monitoring: methodology, clinical relevance and practical application: a 2021 position paper by the Working Group on Blood Pressure Monitoring and Cardiovascular Variability of the European Society of Hypertension.Journal of hypertension · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinic blood pressure measurement (CBPM) is currently the most commonly used form of screening for hypertension, however it might have a problem detecting white coat hypertension (WCHT) and masked hypertension (MHT). Home blood pressure measurement (HBPM) may be an alternative, but its diagnostic performance is inconclusive relative to CBPM. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to estimate the performance of CBPM and HBPM compared with ambulatory blood pressure measurement(ABPM) and to pool prevalence of WCHT and MHT.
methodsMedline, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform databases were searched up to 23rd January 2020. Studies having diagnostic tests as CBPM or HBPM with reference standard as ABPM, reporting sensitivity and specificity of both tests and/or proportion of WCHT or MHT were eligible. Diagnostic performance of CBPM and HBPM were pooled using bivariate mixed-effect regression model. Random effect model was applied to pool prevalence of WCHT and MHT.
resultsFifty-eight studies were eligible. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of CBPM, when using 24-h ABPM as the reference standard, were 74% (95% CI: 65-82%), 79% (95% CI: 69%, 87%), and 11.11 (95% CI: 6.82, 14.20), respectively. Pooled prevalence of WCHT and MHT were 0.24 (95% CI 0.19, 0.29) and 0.29 (95% CI 0.20, 0.38). Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and DOR of HBPM were 71% (95% CI 61%, 80%), 82% (95% CI 77%, 87%), and 11.60 (95% CI 8.98, 15.13), respectively.
conclusionsDiagnostic performances of HBPM were slightly higher than CBPM. However, the prevalence of MHT was high in negative CBPM and some persons with normal HBPM had elevated BP from 24-h ABPM. Therefore, ABPM is still necessary for confirming the diagnosis of HT.
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.