ReviewDeutsches Arzteblatt international2021
Monitoring of Treatment for Arterial Hypertension–The Role of Office, Home, and 24 h Ambulatory Blood Pressure Measurement.
Review in Deutsches Arzteblatt international, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy and safety evaluation of Allisartan Isoproxil in patients with hypertension: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Pooled it
- The assessment of hypertension in kidney transplant patients: time to change our approach?Clinical kidney journal · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe treatment of arterial hypertension can be monitored by office blood pressure (office BP), home blood pressure (home BP), or 24 hours ambulatory blood pressure (ABPM). In this review, we present current recommendations from Germany and from international guidelines as well as the findings of the main studies on the use of these methods to guide treatment.
methodsThis review is based on pertinent publications retrieved by a selective search in PubMed up to and including March 2020. Special attention was paid to guidelines and position papers.
resultsThe guidelines offer heterogeneous recommendations for treatment monitoring. Home BP is the most reproducible method, with test-retest correlation coefficients of 0.91/0.86 (systolic/diastolic), in comparison to office BP (0.77/0.76). Two meta-analyses revealed better blood pressure control with home measurement than with usual care (systolic, -3.2 to -8.9 mmHg). A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials also suggests that home measurement promotes adherence. In the randomized and controlled TASMINH4 trial, the home BP group with telemetric surveillance achieved better blood pressure control than the group with treatment titration based on office BP (systolic -4.7 [CI: -7; -2.4] mmHg, diastolic -1.3 [-2.5; 0.02] mmHg). With ABPM, patients frequently reported moderate to severe discomfort, limiting its practical applicability.
conclusionBlood pressure measurement at home is recommended for treatment monitoring, using validated, automatic upper arm devices with data storage and trend analysis. Changes of treatment should be based on average values (28 home measurements) from seven days (two morning and two evening measurements per day). Office BP is mainly used for for screening purposes. There have not yet been any randomized trials comparing the three measuring methods in terms of hard cardiovascular endpoints.
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.