ArticleAmerican journal of hypertension2025
Clinical Impact of 3- Vs. 5-Minute Delay and 30- Vs. 60-Second Intervals on Unattended Automated Office Blood Pressure Measurements.
Article in American journal of hypertension, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of unattended, attended and routine clinic systolic blood pressure measurements and determinants of blood pressure difference between attended and unattended BP.Journal of human hypertension · 2026Trial
- Evidence-Based, Streamlined Approach to Measure Blood Pressure in Primary Care Settings.Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) · 2026Review
- Remote Blood Pressure Monitoring: A Comprehensive Review.American journal of hypertension · 2026Review
- Compliance and Impact of a 5-Min Seated Rest Protocol on Home Blood Pressure Monitoring in Postpartum Women.American journal of hypertension · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGuidelines advise automated office blood pressure (AOBP) with an initial 5-minute delay and multiple measurements at least 60 seconds apart. Recent studies suggest that AOBP may be accurate with shorter delays or intervals, but evidence in clinical settings is limited.
methodsPatients referred to 1 hypertension (HTN) center underwent 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and 1 of 4 nonrandomized, unattended AOBP protocols: a 3- or 5-minute delay with a 30- or 60-second interval, i.e., 3 min/30 s/30 s, 3/60/60, 5/30/30 and 5/60/60 protocols. HTN was defined as systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥140 or diastolic blood pressure ≥90 mm Hg.
resultsWe compared differences in mean blood pressure and HTN classification between average AOBP and awake-time ABPM by t-tests and Fisher's exact test. Among 212 participants (mean 58.9 years, 61% women, 25% Black), there was substantial overlap in the probability distributions of awake-time ABPM and each of the 3 AOBP measures. SBP means were similar between the 5/60/60 and 3/30/30 protocols and 5/30/30 and 3/60/60 protocols. The 5/30/30 was associated with a higher proportion of systolic HTN, while the 3/60/60 protocol was associated with a higher proportion of diastolic HTN. There were no significant differences in systolic or diastolic HTN between 5/60/60 and 3/30/30 protocols with respect to awake-time ABPM.
conclusionsIn this quality improvement study, the shortest AOBP protocol did not differ significantly from the longest protocol. The time savings of shorter protocols may improve AOBP adoption in clinical practice without meaningfully compromising accuracy.
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.