ArticleScientific reports2022
A count-based decision method for target blood pressure achievement in home blood pressure monitoring data interpretation for clinical practices.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Home blood pressure (HBP) is useful to decide whether blood pressure (BP) is controlled. However, applying HBP to daily clinical practices is still challenging without easy access to the average HBP. Therefore, we developed a simple method to make a quick decision regarding the controlledness of HBP through high BP counts. We simulated 100 cases of HBP series for each combination of 3 numbers of BP readings (K = 16, 20, 24) and 4 levels of the standard deviations (SDs = 5, 10, 15, 20). A high BP was defined as an individual BP ≥ 135/85 mmHg, and an uncontrolled HBP was defined as a mean HBP ≥ 135/85 mmHg. Validation for the decision method was conducted using actual HBP data. The C-statistics and the accuracy of the high BP counts for the uncontrolled HBP were generally high (> 0.85) for all combinations of Ks and SDs and decreased as SDs increased but remained steady as Ks increased. In validation, the C-statistic of the high BP count-to-total BP reading (C/T) ratio was 0.985, and the C/T ratio ≥ 0.5 showed a sensitivity of 0.957, a specificity of 0.907, and an accuracy of 0.927. The count-based decision method can provide an accurate quick assessment of the controlledness of HBP.
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.