Trial reportJournal of hypertension2025
How often should self-monitoring of blood pressure be repeated? A secondary analysis of data from two randomized controlled trials.
Trial report in Journal of 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLittle evidence exists around the optimal frequency of self-monitoring of blood pressure (BP). Testing too frequently can lead to erroneous management changes due to random "noise" leading to raised measurements by chance. This study used recent trial data to evaluate self-monitored BP over time, aiming to determine how frequently patients should self-monitor.
methodsData from patients with home BP ≤135/85 mmHg on stable medication in the self-monitoring groups of two trials were analysed using a mixed effects model. The primary outcome was mean change in BP per month. Secondary outcomes included intra-individual BP variability, and probability of truly raised BP over time.
results232 participants from HOMEBP, and 582 participants from TASMINH4 were included. The mean changes in systolic BP per month per study were -0.1 mmHg [standard deviation (SD) 0.6 mmHg], and -0.2mmHg [SD 0.7 mmHg], respectively. Intra-individual systolic variability (SD) per month was 4.7 and 5.1 mmHg respectively. Using TASMINH4 data, from a starting systolic BP of 130 mmHg, re-testing BP after 6 months resulted in a probability of 18% that BP ≥135 mmHg, with a 25% probability that this reflected truly raised BP; after 12 months the probability of a raised reading was 26% with a 65% probability this reflected a true rise.
conclusionsIn the absence of medication changes, there was very little change in mean self-monitored BP per month, with larger variability within an individual's monthly submitted readings. For people with initially controlled BP and stable medication, repeating self-monitoring at 12 months is likely to be appropriate in guiding management.
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.