ArticleAmerican journal of preventive cardiology2021
Assessment of blood pressure skills and belief in clinical readings.
Article in American journal of preventive cardiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Measuring blood pressure accurately.Australian prescriber · 2026Review
- Hypertension - a major modifiable and undertreated risk factor.Australian prescriber · 2025Article
- Over-the-counter access to combined oral contraceptives for individuals with hypertension: an expert review.American journal of preventive cardiology · 2025Review
- Zero End-Digit Preference in Blood Pressure and Implications for Cardiovascular Disease Risk Prediction-A Study in New Zealand.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- The role of community health workers in the management of hypertension in Nigeria.BMC primary care · 2024Article
- The delusion of measuring blood pressure.The British journal of cardiology · 2023Article
- 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
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate blood pressure (BP) measurement is essential for the diagnosis and management of hypertension. In clinical practice, BP is estimated using noninvasive methods with significant variability of application of guidelines in clinical practice, impacting the accuracy and certainty of BP measurements.
objectiveWe sought to assess how BP is measured in clinical practice.
methodsA survey was administered through professional societies that included predominantly cardiologists. Assessment of adherence to guideline recommendations for BP assessment was measured and compared to the level of confidence in clinic BP measurement.
resultsThere were 571 surveys completed. The majority of respondents were cardiologists (61.1%), with 47 preventive cardiologists. BP was routinely checked in both arms by 53% at the initial visit, 48% check BP once each visit, and 64% wait 5 min before initial BP assessment. Automated BP assessment is used by 58% respondents. The majority (83%) trust their BP readings, and those who trust their BP readings are more likely to perform the initial BP assessment themselves, compared to those who do not trust the clinic BP readings (30.2% vs. 13.6%,
conclusionsAccurate BP assessment continues to remain suboptimal in clinical practice. Reliability of BP assessment requires education, identifying barriers to implementation of recommendations and engagement of the entire team to improve BP assessment.
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.