ArticleCureus2021
Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring: Our Experience in Routine Clinical Practice.
Article in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate feasibility and usefulness of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) in outpatient setting. MATERIAL AND
methodsIn this prospective study, data of 58 patients who were evaluated with ABPM for diagnosis or therapeutic efficacy purpose were collected from their records. Demographic details of these were recorded. Patients were categorized into different categories based on 24 hours BP pattern. Dipping pattern was compared based on the gender, age, and presence of diabetes or hypertension. Number of patients diagnosed as hypertensive with ABPM reports was compared with office and home BP measurement.
resultsFifty-eight patients (mean age 57.8 years; 70.69% males) were included of whom 22 (37.93%) underwent ABPM for diagnostic purposes. There was gender-wise significant difference in terms of purpose of performing ABPM (p=0.040). Diabetes was present in 22 (37.93%) patients. Out of 36 known hypertensive patients, 17 (47.22%) patients were receiving dual therapy. Out of 45 patients whose records for active BP variability were available, 26 (57.78%) had high variability. The number and percentage of dippers, extreme dippers and reverse dippers as 23 (42.79%), three (5.56%), and six (11.11%), respectively. Depending on the age, there was significant difference in the dipping pattern (p=0.013). On office blood pressure measurement, 35 (64.81%) patients were found to have hypertension. ABPM revealed hypertension in 32 (59.26%). Masked hypertension and white-coat hypertension was observed in nine (16.17%) and 12 (22.22%) patients, respectively.
conclusionABPM is feasible and useful in routine outpatient clinical practice for diagnosis of essential hypertension, pattern of dipping, masked hypertension, and white-coat hypertension and also for the therapeutic evaluation of patients in clinical practice.
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.