ArticleEuropean journal of pediatrics2025
Multiple office blood pressure monitoring for the diagnosis of hypertension in children.
Article in European journal of pediatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Medical shopping and diagnostic shopping in pediatric nephrology: a novel framework for understanding overmedicalization in the digital era.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2026Article
- SREBP gene polymorphisms and ambulatory blood pressure parameters in Chinese adolescents: a cross-sectional study.European journal of pediatrics · 2026Article
- Urinary plasminogen as an early marker of diabetic kidney disease in children with type 1 diabetes mellitus: a cross-sectional study.European journal of pediatrics · 2025Article
- Question: "How many times should blood pressure be measured in children? Answer: "As many times as needed to obtain reliable values".European journal of pediatrics · 2025Article
- How many times should blood pressure be measured?European journal of pediatrics · 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The measurement (M) of blood pressure (BP) in children may be challenging, and the ideal approach, free of critical issues (such as the interference due to the white coat effect or to the high variability), has yet to be identified. Herein, we compare BP as measured with multiple office BP monitoring (mOBPM) with the standard approach as suggested by guidelines. A cohort of healthy children underwent two mOBPMs 1 year apart. Mean systolic and diastolic values obtained by mOBPM were compared with the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th measurements (repeated measures ANOVA). mOBPMs with a coefficient of variation (CV) > 15% were excluded. The number of children with BP > 90th centile was determined based on (a) each of the initial three readings, (b) the mean of the 2nd and 3rd Ms, (c) the 4th M, (d) the mOBPM at baseline, and (e) 1 year apart. Out of 164 enrolled children, 13 (7.9%) were excluded because of a CV > 15%. The analysis on the remaining 151 children showed that the first three Ms provided a significantly higher BP than the mOBPM. The 4th M was the first one to be aligned with the results of the mOBPM. Based on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Ms, a BP > 90th centile was observed in 29, 20, 21, and 16 children, respectively. The mean of the 2nd and 3rd Ms identified 12 children with high BP, while the mOBPM revealed elevated BP in only 6 children and this finding was confirmed only in 3 of them 1 year later.
conclusionThe first three readings systematically overestimate BP, while the 4th one better aligns with the mOBPM. If the 4th reading is abnormal, the complete mOBPM will likely offer a more reliable BP assessment. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Blood pressure measurement may be challanging and initial readings systematically overestimate real values. WHAT IS NEW: • The 4th blood pressure reading better aligns with the mean of 10 measurements. In daily clinical practice, if the 4th reading is abnormal, the complete mOBPM (www.mobpm.com) will likely offer a more reliable BP assessment.
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.