ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2024
Assessment of appropriate utilization of out-of-office diagnostic tools for the diagnosis of hypertension.
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. 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.
- Dogs evaluated in a home environment show decreased arterial blood pressure and stress levels.Journal of veterinary internal medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Out-of-office blood pressure (BP) measurement devices, such as ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) and home BP monitoring (HBPM), enhance the accuracy and reliability of BP readings, detecting white-coat and masked hypertension. The American Heart Association (AHA) advises confirming hypertension diagnoses with ABPM to prevent overdiagnosis, emphasizing the importance of precise out-of-office diagnostic tools. This study aimed to 1) explore the prevalence of ABPM and HBPM use prior to hypertension diagnosis; 2) assess the adherence to AHA recommendations regarding ABPM utilization; and 3) investigate the association between patient characteristics and out-of-office BP monitoring practices. Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional study analyzed a random sample of adult patients newly diagnosed with essential hypertension at a tertiary hospital primary care center in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, between 2016 and 2022. Results: This study evaluated the use of ABPM and HBPM in a sample of 268 newly diagnosed hypertensive patients, with a mean age of 49.17 ± 12.69 years. Although ABPM orders were placed for 57.8% of patients, only 48.5% completed the procedure. Notably, 42.2% of hypertension diagnoses were solely based on ABPM, while 7.1% and 1.1% utilized HBPM alone or in combination with ABPM, respectively. This analysis revealed a lower utilization of ABPM among older adults, individuals with diabetes or chronic kidney disease, and married patients ( Conclusion: Out-of-office BP monitoring, particularly ABPM, was underutilized in newly diagnosed hypertensive patients, especially in older age groups and patients with specific comorbidities, who may benefit the most from this method. These results underscore the need for increasing physician knowledge and compliance with the existing guidelines.
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.