ArticleHypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension2022
Comparative accuracies of automated and manual office blood pressure measurements in a Chinese population.
Article in Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension, 2022. 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.
- Update on Hypertension Research in 2021.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We aimed to assess the difference in the accuracy of readings from automated office blood pressure machines with each other or with manual office blood pressure measurements in Chinese individuals. We collected awake 48-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, two automated office blood pressure device (BpTRU and WatchBP) readings, and manual office blood pressure measurements in Chinese patients (n = 135) with hypertension in a randomized sequence. Differences were compared using paired t-tests and Bland-Altman plots. The sensitivity and specificity of the techniques for detecting elevated blood pressure were calculated using awake ambulatory blood pressure monitoring as the reference standard. The WatchBP device's and awake ambulatory blood pressure readings were similar. The BpTRU device provided significantly lower mean systolic (P < 0.001) and diastolic (P < 0.001) blood pressure readings, while manual office BP provided significantly higher mean systolic (P = 0.008) and diastolic (P < 0.001) blood pressure readings than the awake automated office blood pressure readings. Automated and manual office blood pressure measurements showed similar sensitivity, specificity, and 95% limits of agreement as based on Bland-Altman plots. The mean systolic (P < 0.001) and diastolic (P < 0.02) blood pressure readings of WatchBP and BpTRU differed, and their diagnostic performances were not superior than those of manual office blood pressure measurements in Chinese patients. Therefore, automated office blood pressure measurements cannot be routinely recommended for Chinese individuals in clinical practice. More studies are needed to confirm these results.
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.