Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35141128›Full record

ArticleGlobal heart2021

Validation of a Practical Approach to Blood Pressure Measurement: Secondary Analysis of Data from a Nationally Representative Survey in India.

Roopa Shivashankar, Bhawna Sharma, Andrew E Moran, Anupam Khungar Pathni

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Global heart, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

4 authors.

Roopa ShivashankarResolve to Save Lives, Vital Strategies, Delhi, IN.
Bhawna SharmaResolve to Save Lives, Vital Strategies, Delhi, IN.
Andrew E MoranResolve to Save Live, Vital Strategies, New York, US.
Anupam Khungar PathniResolve to Save Lives, Vital Strategies, Delhi, IN.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Clinical guidelines differ on the recommended number of blood pressure (BP) measurements for hypertension diagnosis in primary health care settings. We assessed the accuracy in identifying high BP (≥140/90 mmHg) and efficiency (mean BP measures per person in one visit) of a practical BP measurement approach against the research standard. Methods: We analyzed data from a national survey in India with three BP measurements for each adult participant (N = 372,110). The research standard (referred to as 'standard approach') is measuring three BP and using the mean of the last two. In the practical approach, the first BP reading was used if the measure was <140/90 mmHg; the second BP was used if the first BP was ≥140/90 mmHg. If the difference between either the first two systolic or diastolic BPs was >5 mmHg, then we used the third reading. Results: Prevalence of high BP was 15.5% and 14.9% using standard and practical approaches, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, false positive, and false negative rates of the practical approach were 85.4%, 98.0%, 11.3%, and 2.7% compared to the standard approach. The practical approach was more resource-efficient (mean BPs/person/visit 1.4 versus 3.0 for the standard approach). The practical approach had similar validity, but higher efficiency compared to other internationally recommended BP measurement protocols. Conclusion: The practical BP measurement approach has high validity, is simpler and involves a lower measurement burden on health care providers and can improve the utility of BP measurement, hypertension diagnosis, and management in busy primary health care settings.

Indexed as

Blood Pressure DeterminationHypertensionAdultBlood PressureHumansIndiaSystoleblood pressure measurementhypertensionprimary health carescreeningvalidation study

Identifiers

PMID35141128
PMCPMC8698233

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.