ReviewAtencion primaria2022
[Interarm blood pressure difference: Concordance between two methods of automatic simultaneous measurement and between visits reproducibility].
Review in Atencion primaria, 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveAn increased interarm blood pressure difference (IAD) (≥10mmHg) has been associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. There are few studies determining how IAD has to be measured and its reliability between visits. The objectives of our study were twofold. First, to evaluate the concordance between two automatic oscillometric devices for IAD measurement (two OMRON devices and one Microlife WatchBP™ device (WBP™)) and to analyse the reproducibility of IAD between visits in the general population attending a primary care centre.
designDescriptive cross-sectional study of concordance between the two methods and reproducibility of IAD between two visits separated by one week. SITE: Parets del Vallès primary care centre (Barcelona).
participantsGeneral population aged 35-74 years. INTERVENTIONS AND MAIN MEASUREMENTS: One hundred and forty-nine patients completed the two visits. At each visit, IAD was measured three times with both methods and the mean of the three determinations was considered. Other variables such as sociodemographic and anthropometric variables, pathological antecedents and pharmacological treatment were collected through a review of the medical history and an interview with the patient. Concordance between the two devices and between visits reproducibility were calculated using the Lin concordance coefficient (CCL) for IAD expressed continuously and kappa(k) indices for IAD categorised as normal or pathological.
resultsConcordance for IAD expressed continuously was low: CCL=0.13 (0.02-0.24). Concordance was also low for IAD categorised as normal or pathological (k=-0.03 (-0.05-0.00)). Reproducibility between visits was low for both methods and for both continuous and categorised IAD: with OMRON™ CCL=0.19 (0.03-0.34) and k=-0.02 (-0.16-0.12) and for WBP™ CCL=0.14 (-0.01-0.29) and k=0.49 (0.33-0.64).
conclusionsConcordance between two automatic oscillometers in the simultaneous IAD measurement was low. Reproducibility between visits was also low for both methods.
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.