ArticleJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2021
How should we measure blood pressure? Implications of the fourth blood pressure measurement in office blood pressure.
Article in Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02552030 (iPhone App Compared to Standard RR-measurement - iPARR Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
iPhone App Compared to Standard RR-measurement - iPARR Trial
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- How Should We Measure and Deal with Office Blood Pressure in 2021?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- How should we measure blood pressure? Implications of the fourth blood pressure measurement in office blood pressure.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2021Article
- Article
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
According to the European Hypertension Guidelines regarding office blood pressure measurements (OBPMs), the mean between second/third or third/fourth OBPM should be taken if the first two readings differ by ≤10 or >10 mmHg, respectively. Our aim was to explore the value of the fourth OBPM and determine whether a simplified OBPM procedure is feasible without loss of quality. In this cross-sectional study, four standard OBPMs were taken. The mean of the second/third OBPM (S2S3/D2D3) and third/fourth OBPM (S3S4/D3D4) for systolic/diastolic values was calculated. Correlation, agreement, and differences regarding BP classification were explored for the entire cohort and subsets with a difference between the first/second OBPM (S1S2/D1D2) ≤10 and >10 mmHg. Overall (n = 802) and for the subsets with an S1S2 (n = 596) and D1D2 (n = 742) difference ≤10 mmHg, S3S4/D3D4 was in median 0.5 mmHg lower than S2S3/D2D3, respectively (p < .0005 for all). In participants with an S1S2 (n = 206) and D1D2 (n = 60) difference >10 mmHg, S3S4/D3D4 differed numerically from S2S3/D2D3, respectively (p > .1 for all). Overall and for all subsets with an S1S2/D1D2 difference ≤10/>10 mmHg, less subjects were numerically classified as hypertensive with S3S4/D3D4 than with S2S3/D2D3 (p > .04), but BP reclassification occurred in both directions in 1.0%-10.0%, depending on the cohort. In conclusion, the third/fourth OBPM results in lower BP values than the second/third measurement, regardless of the difference between first/second OBPM, whereby BP reclassifications occurred in both directions. Therefore, the cutoff of >10 versus ≤10mmHg difference between first/second OBPM to implement a fourth BPM harbors the risk of distorted results. We therefore recommend using the second/third BPM for standardized OBPM. Trial registration: Registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02552030).
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.