ArticleAmerican journal of hypertension2023
Comparison of Blood Pressure Measurements from Clinical Practice and a Research Study At Kaiser Permanente Southern California.
Article in American journal of hypertension, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of Systolic Blood Pressure Measurement Error on the Cost-Effectiveness of Intensive Blood Pressure Targets.Annals of internal medicine · 2025Article
- Home based cardiac rehabilitation: A retrospective cohort analysis on all-cause mortality and hospital readmission rates across sexes and races.American journal of preventive cardiology · 2024Article
- Recent Progress of Wearable Triboelectric Nanogenerator-Based Sensor for Pulse Wave Monitoring.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAccurate blood pressure (BP) measurement is essential to identify and manage hypertension. Prior studies have reported a difference between BP measured in routine patient care and in research studies. We aimed to investigate the agreement between BP measured in routine care and research-grade BP in Kaiser Permanente Southern California, a large, integrated healthcare system with initiatives to standardize BP measurements during routine patient care visits.
methodsWe included adults ≥65 years old with hypertension, taking antihypertensive medication, and participating in the Ambulatory Blood Pressure in Older Adults (AMBROSIA) study in 2019-2021. Clinic BP from routine care visits was extracted from the electronic health record. Research-grade BP was obtained by trained AMBROSIA study staff via an automatic oscillometric device. The mean difference between routine care and research-grade BP, limits of agreement, and correlation were assessed.
resultsWe included 309 participants (mean age 75 years; 54% female; 49% non-Hispanic white). Compared with measurements from routine care, mean research-grade systolic BP (SBP) was 0.1 mm Hg higher (95% CI: -1.5 to 1.8) and diastolic BP (DBP) was 0.4 mm Hg lower (95% CI: -1.6 to 0.7). Limits of agreement were -29 to 30 mm Hg for SBP and -21 to 20 mm Hg for DBP. The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.42 (95% CI: 0.33 to 0.51) for SBP and 0.43 (95% CI: 0.34 to 0.52) for DBP.
conclusionsHigh within-person variation and moderate correlation were present between BP measured in routine care and following a research protocol suggesting the importance of standardized measurements.
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.