ArticleResearch square2024
Reliability of beat-to-beat blood pressure variability in older adults.
Article in Research square, 2024. 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
- Updated by
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Blood pressure variability (BPV) is emerging as an important risk factor across numerous disease states, including cerebrovascular and neurodegenerative disease in older adults. However, there is no current consensus regarding specific use cases for the numerous available BPV metrics. There is also little published data supporting the ability to reliably measure BPV across metrics in older adults. BPV metrics were derived from continuous beat-to-beat blood pressure monitoring data. Two sequential 7-minute waveforms were analyzed. Absolute and relative reliability testing was performed. Differences between antihypertensive medication users and non-users on BPV metric reliability was also assessed. All sequence and dispersion based BPV metrics displayed good test-retest reliability. A measure of BP instability displayed only moderate reliability. Systolic and diastolic average real variability displayed the highest levels of reliability at ICC= .87 and .82 respectively. Additionally, systolic average real variability was the most reliable metric in both the antihypertensive use group, and the no antihypertensive use group. Beat-to-beat dispersion and sequence-based metrics of BPV can be reliably obtained from older adults using noninvasive continuous blood pressure monitoring. Average real variability may be the most reliable and specific beat-to-beat blood pressure variability metric due to its decreased susceptibility to outliers and low frequency blood pressure oscillations.
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.