Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38948560›Full record

ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2024

Comparison of routine office blood pressure measurement versus standardized attended manually activated oscillometric office blood pressure measurement in patients with chronic kidney disease.

Anand Chellappan, Keshiha Kansal

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Anand ChellappanDepartment of Nephrology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Nagpur, Maharashtra, India.
Keshiha KansalFinal Year Undergraduate Student, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Nagpur, Maharashtra, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Context: Erroneous blood pressure measurement could lead to improper treatment and hence progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD). In routine clinical practice, there is poor adherence to the various steps to be followed during blood pressure measurement. Automated oscillometric BP measurement is difficult to perform in routine clinical practice due to several practical limitations. Aims: To evaluate the quality of blood pressure measurement and to compare routine office blood pressure measurement with standardized attended manually activated oscillometric blood pressure measurement in patients with CKD attending the nephrology outpatient department (OPD) of a tertiary care referral center. Settings and Design: This cross-sectional study was conducted in patients aged more than 18 years with CKD stage 3-5ND, and previously diagnosed hypertension, in the nephrology OPD of a tertiary care referral center between July 2022 and September 2022. Methods and Material: The quality of blood pressure measurement was evaluated using a questionnaire. The study participants had their blood pressure checked by both methods-routine office blood pressure and standardized attended manually activated oscillometric blood pressure. Results: Standardized attended manually activated oscillometric blood pressure measurement yielded a significantly higher systolic blood pressure (SBP) compared to routine office blood pressure measurement (Mean SBP: 139.53 ± 29.1 vs 132.57 ± 23.59; Conclusions: Standardized attended manually activated oscillometric BP measurement yields a higher systolic BP compared to routine office BP measurement. Further studies are required to compare the standardized attended oscillometric BP measurement used in this study with unattended automated oscillometric BP measurement and ambulatory BP measurement.

Indexed as

Blood pressure determinationhypertensionKDIGOmonitoringoscillometric blood pressure

Identifiers

PMID38948560
PMCPMC11213415

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.