ArticleJournal of human hypertension2025
Preventing troublesome variability in clinical blood pressure measurement.
Article in Journal of human hypertension, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The importance of accurate blood pressure (BP) measurement is well-established. However, there is little quantitative comparative data on the influence of different measurement conditions on BP or the stability of the oscillometric pulse waveform from which BP is calculated. This study investigates the effect of six different measurement conditions (Quiet, Reading, Speaking, Deep Breathing, Moving, and Tapping) on BP readings in 30 healthy normotensive subjects. We hypothesize that non-standard conditions will result in significant deviations in BP measurements compared to the Quiet condition. Additionally, the quality and stability of the oscillometric waveform were assessed by evaluating the smoothness of the oscillometric pulse waveform characteristics during cuff deflation. Compared with the Quiet condition, all others resulted in significantly higher blood pressures, except for the respiratory condition, which resulted in significantly lower BPs. Average subject systolic BP (SBP) rose from 117.4 ± 6.0 mmHg for the Quiet condition to 129.7 ± 7.2 mmHg for the light finger tapping condition, P < 0.00001. Overall, changes for diastolic BP (DBP) were not significant. For the quality Noise indicator, all conditions in comparison with the Quiet condition were significantly noisier, increasing from 0.144 ± 0.024 to 1.055 ± 0.308 mmHg, P < 0.00001. Changes in SBP were significantly correlated to changes in quality Noise (r = 0.965, P < 0.001). This study confirms the importance of following international BP measurement guidelines, providing quantitative data showing significant changes in BP when guidelines are not followed. A method for assessing the quality of the measurement is also demonstrated, and shows that BP changes are significantly related to changes in the quality indicator.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39567726What 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.