ArticleJournal of human hypertension2024
Cutoffs for white-coat and masked blood pressure effects: an ambulatory blood pressure monitoring study.
Article 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Relationship between white-coat hypertension and office isolated systolic or diastolic hypertension: an ambulatory blood pressure monitoring study.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The values used to define white-coat and masked blood pressure (BP) effects are usually arbitrary. This study aimed at investigating the accuracy of various cutoffs based on the differences (ΔBP) between office BP (OBP) and 24h-ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) to identify white-coat (WCH) and masked (MH) hypertension, which are phenotypes coupled with adverse prognosis. This cross-sectional study included 11,350 [Derivation cohort; 45% men, mean age = 55.1 ± 14.1 years, OBP = 132.1 ± 17.6/83.9 ± 12.5 mmHg, 24 h-ABPM = 121.6 ± 11.4/76.1 ± 9.6 mmHg, 25% using antihypertensive medications (AH)] and 7220 (Validation cohort; 46% men, mean age = 58.6 ± 15.1 years, OBP = 136.8 ± 18.7/87.6 ± 13.0 mmHg, 24 h-ABPM = 125.5 ± 12.6/77.7 ± 10.3 mmHg; 32% using AH) unique individuals who underwent 24 h-ABPM. We compared the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and area under the curve (AUC) of diverse ΔBP cutoffs to detect WCH (ΔsystolicBP/ΔdiastolicBP = 28/17, 20/15, 20/10, 16/11, 15/9, 14/9 mmHg and ΔsystolicBP = 13 and 10 mmHg) and MH (ΔsystolicBP/ΔdiastolicBP = -14/-9, -5/-2, -3/-1, -1/-1, 0/0, 2/2 mmHg and ΔsystolicBP = -5 and -3mmHg). The 20/15 mmHg cutoff showed the best AUC (0.804, 95%CI = 0.794-0.814) to detect WCH, while the 2/2 mmHg cutoff showed the highest AUC (0.741, 95%CI = 0.728-0.754) to detect MH in the Derivation cohort. Both cutoffs also had the best accuracy to detect WCH (0.767, 95%CI = 0.754-0.780) and MH (0.767, 95%CI = 0.750-0.784) in the Validation cohort. In secondary analyses, these cutoffs had the best accuracy to detect individuals with higher and lower office-than-ABPM grades in both cohorts. In conclusion, the 20/15 and 2/2 mmHg ΔBP cutoffs had the best accuracy to detect hypertensive patients with WCH and MH, respectively, and can serve as indicators of marked white-coat and masked BP effects derived from 24 h-ABPM.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38987381What 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.