Trial reportJournal of human hypertension2024
High versus low measurement frequency during 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring - a randomized crossover study.
Trial report in Journal of human hypertension, 2024. 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.
- Effects of a 4-Week Multi-Exercise Isometric Resistance Training Programme on Resting and Ambulatory Blood Pressure in Normotensive Adults.European journal of sport science · 2026Trial
- Toward patient-centered blood pressure monitoring: first evaluation of a low-pressure and rapid oscillometric method for reducing cuff-related measurement burden.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2026Article
- Long COVID Does Not Impair Hemodynamic, Vascular, or Autonomic Responses to Maximal Exercise: Sex-Stratified Study in Young Adults.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) may be stressful and associated with discomfort, possibly influenced by the number of cuff inflations. We compared a low frequency (LF-ABPM) regimen with one cuff inflation per hour, with a high frequency (HF-ABPM) regimen performed according to current guidelines using three cuff-inflations per hour during daytime and two cuff-inflations during night time. In a crossover study, patients underwent ABPMs with both frequencies, in a randomized order, within an interval of a few days. Patients reported pain (visual analogue scale from 0 to 10) and sleep disturbances after each ABPM. The primary endpoint was the difference in mean 24 h systolic BP (SBP) between HF-ABPM and LF-ABPM. A total of 171 patients were randomized, and data from 131 (age 58 ± 14 years, 47% females, 24% normotensive, 53% mildly hypertensive, and 22% moderately-severely hypertensive) completing both ABPMs were included in the analysis. Mean SBP was 137.5 mmHg (95% CI, 134.8;140.2) for HF-ABPM and 138.2 mmHg (95%CI, 135.2;141.1) for LF-ABPM. The 95% limits of agreement were -15.3 mmHg and +14.0 mmHg. Mean 24 h SBP difference between HF-ABPM and LF-ABPM was -0.7 mmHg (95%CI, -2.0;0.6). Coefficients of variation were similar for LF-ABPM and HF-ABPM. Pain scores (median with interquartile range), for HF-ABPM and LF-ABPM were 1.5 (0.6;3.0) and 1.3 (0.6;2.9) during daytime, and 1.3 (0.4:3.4) and 0.9 (0.4;2.0) during nighttime (P < 0.05 for both differences). We conclude that LF-ABPM and HF-ABPM values are in good agreement without any clinically relevant differences in BP. Furthermore, LF-ABPM causes a relatively modest reduction in procedure-related pain.
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.