ReviewJournal of human hypertension2022
Accuracy of non-invasive blood pressure measurement in patients with atrial fibrillation.
Review in Journal of human hypertension, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of amiodarone, diltiazem, or both to achieve strict heart rate control in dogs with atrial fibrillation.Journal of veterinary internal medicine · 2026Article
- Blood pressure variability and the risk of post-stroke cognitive impairment following atrial fibrillation related acute ischemic stroke.Clinical hypertension · 2026Article
- Golden hour management in the patient with intraparenchymal cerebral hemorrhage: an Italian intersociety document.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2025Review
- WATCH-PR: Comparison of the Pulse Rate of a WATCH-Type Blood Pressure Monitor with the Pulse Rate of a Conventional Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitor.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Exploring the link between blood pressure variability and atrial fibrillation: current insights and future directions.Journal of human hypertension · 2024Review
- Accuracy of oscillometric-based blood pressure monitoring devices: impact of pulse volume, arrhythmia, and respiratory artifact.Journal of human hypertension · 2024Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although the accuracy of oscillometric blood pressure (BP) measurement is not so satisfied, the BP reading is still associated with cardiovascular events and death in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Because the currently used auscultatory or oscillometric methods were developed on sinus rhythm (SR), these BP measurement methods were not reasonable for AF patients. It is suggested that the average of three BP readings in the AF patients is accepted in clinical, even so, high systolic BP (SBP) variability and inaccurate diastolic BP (DBP) value have been reported in AF patients. In sinus rhythm, oscillometric pressure pulses (OPPs) are spindle-like, regardless of the heart rate. However, the shape of OPP is obviously associated with frequency of ventricular rate (VR) in AF patients. When the VR is rapid, the OPP is far from a spindle-like shape. With intro-aortic BP as reference, a study demonstrated that the oscillometric SBP level significantly underestimated the intro-aortic SBP level in the AF patients with increasing VR. In clinical practice, the physician should use the average of three BP readings in the AF patients. When the mean pulse rates (PR) reported by the oscillometric BP devise is less than 90 bpm and the variation of three pulse rate <10 bpm, the oscillometric SBP readings may be clinically accepted in AF patients. It is necessary to develop a new BP measurement method for AF as the current methods in AF are not so accurate as in SR.
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.