ArticleClinical hypertension2024
Comparing blood pressure measurements between sitting in chairs and sitting on the floor.
Article in Clinical hypertension, 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe current standard approach to measuring home blood pressure (BP) involves taking measurements while sitting in a chair. In cultures where floor sitting is common, including Korea, assessing BP while sitting on the floor would be more feasible. However, there is still a lack of research investigating whether BP measurements obtained while seated in a chair and while sitting on the floor can be regarded as interchangeable. The aim of the study was to evaluate whether there is a difference between BP measurements taken while sitting in a chair and while sitting on the floor in a Korean adult.
methodsAmong the participants who visited for evaluation of pulse wave velocity, a total of 116 participants who agreed to participate in the study were randomly selected. All subjects rested for 5 min, and BP measurements were taken at 1-min intervals according to a randomly assigned order of standard method (chair-sitting) and BP in a seated on the floor (floor-sitting).
resultsOf the 116 participants, the median age was 68 (with an interquartile range of 59 to 75), and 82% were men. There were no significant differences in systolic BP (SBP, 129.1 ± 17.8 mmHg in chair-sitting and 130.1 ± 18.9 mmHg in floor-sitting, P = 0.228) and diastolic BP (DBP, 73.9 ± 11.4 mmHg in chair-sitting and 73.7 ± 11.4 mmHg in floor-sitting, P = 0.839) between the two positions. In addition, there was a high level of agreement between BP measurements taken in the two positions (intraclass correlation coefficients: 0.882 for SBP and 0.890 for DBP).
conclusionThese findings provide important insights into securing the reliability of home BP measurements through the commonly practiced floor-sitting posture in cultures where floor sitting is common. Furthermore, this could serve as substantial evidence for providing specific home BP measurement guidelines to patients who adhere to a floor-sitting lifestyle.
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.