Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33955645›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2021

The impact of changing home blood pressure monitoring cutoff from 135/85 to 130/80 mmHg on hypertension phenotypes.

Audes D M Feitosa, Marco A Mota-Gomes, Weimar S Barroso, Roberto D Miranda, Eduardo C D Barbosa, Andréa A Brandão, Fernando Nobre, Decio Mion, Celso Amodeo, José L Lima-Filho and 2 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

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. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Seasonal variation in blood pressure: what is still missing?Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.

Audes D M FeitosaLaboratory of Immunopathology Keizo Asami, Federal University of Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-9983-4720
Marco A Mota-GomesCESMAC University Center, Maceió, Brazil.
Weimar S BarrosoHypertension League, Federal University of Goiás, Goiânia, Brazil.
Roberto D MirandaCardiovascular Section, Geriatrics Division, Federal University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Eduardo C D BarbosaDepartment of Hypertension and Cardiometabolism, São Francisco Hospital - Santa Casa de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Andréa A BrandãoSchool of Medical Sciences, State University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Fernando NobreUniversity of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil.
Decio MionClinics Hospital, School of Medicine, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Celso AmodeoFederal University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
José L Lima-FilhoLaboratory of Immunopathology Keizo Asami, Federal University of Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil.
Andrei C SpositoDepartment of Internal Medicine, School of Medical Sciences, State University of Campinas, Campinas, Brazil.
Wilson NadruzLaboratory of Immunopathology Keizo Asami, Federal University of Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-0003-5102
Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) · BRUniversidade Federal de Pernambuco · BRUniversidade Federal de São Paulo · BRCentro Universitário Cesmac · BRSanta Casa Hospital · BRUniversidade de Ribeirão Preto · BRUniversidade de São Paulo · BRUniversidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro · BRUniversidade Federal de Goiás · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study investigated the impact of changing abnormal home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) cutoff from 135/85 to 130/80 mmHg on the prevalence of hypertension phenotypes, considering an abnormal office blood pressure cutoff of 140/90 mmHg. We evaluated 57 768 individuals (26 876 untreated and 30 892 treated with antihypertensive medications) from 719 Brazilian centers who performed HBPM. Changing the HBPM cutoff was associated with increases in masked (from 10% to 22%) and sustained (from 27% to 35%) hypertension, and decreases in white-coat hypertension (from 16% to 7%) and normotension (from 47% to 36%) among untreated participants, and increases in masked (from 11% to 22%) and sustained (from 29% to 36%) uncontrolled hypertension, and decreases in white-coat uncontrolled hypertension (from 15% to 8%) and controlled hypertension (from 45% to 34%) among treated participants. In conclusion, adoption of an abnormal HBPM cutoff of 130/80 mmHg markedly increased the prevalence of out-of-office hypertension and uncontrolled hypertension phenotypes.

Indexed as

HypertensionMasked HypertensionWhite Coat HypertensionBlood PressureBlood Pressure Monitoring, AmbulatoryHumansPhenotypehome blood pressuremasked hypertensionoffice blood pressurereference valueswhite-coat hypertension

Identifiers

PMID33955645
PMCPMC8678775
OpenAlexW3158311143

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.