ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
White coat and masked effects depend on blood pressure level and time of blood pressure measurement.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: A total of 24 h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) offers enhanced accuracy for evaluating true blood pressure and associated risks compared to office blood pressure (OBP). However, conflicting results have been reported in studies comparing the two settings, largely due to the statistical bias introduced by the mean difference calculation using the Bland and Altman method, especially if the inherent circadian variation of blood pressure is not considered. This study aimed to assess the difference between OBP and ABPM using a refined statistical approach while accounting for circadian variations at different blood pressure levels. Methods: Multilevel/mixed-effects harmonic regression models were employed to estimate mean 24 h systolic and diastolic blood pressure profiles. The bias plot method, with ABPM as the reference, was used to calculate the OBP- daytime ABPM difference. Results: A total of 647 participants were included with a median of 63 measurements per individual, with most OBP measurements conducted between 8 a.m. and 10 a.m. Analysis showed individual average systolic OBP-ABPM differences ranging from +10 to -30 mmHg and diastolic differences ranging from +20 to -60 mmHg. As ABPM values increase, the patients tend to exhibit a masked effect. Normotensive individuals on ABPM exhibited a white coat effect phenotype, with systolic OBP-ABPM differences ranging from +6 to +9 mmHg. Conversely, hypertensive patients displayed a modest white coat effect for those at the lower hypertension limit and a pronounced masked effect for those at higher hypertension levels. The reduced circadian blood pressure variation observed in hypertensive patients, characterized by a nadir shift to later in the day, contributed to this divergence. Conclusion: Differences between OBP and ABPM depend on mean ABPM blood pressure levels. OBP tends to overestimate in normotensive and underestimate in hypertensive patients. Differences in circadian variation between these groups contribute to the variance.
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.