ArticlePRiMER (Leawood, Kan.)2025
Blood Pressure Protocol: Processing Time of Standard Versus Automated.
Article in PRiMER (Leawood, Kan.), 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Accurate blood pressure (BP) measurement is essential for hypertension diagnosis and management. While automated office blood pressure (AOBP) readings are increasingly used in many primary care settings, the challenges of implementing automated readings have not been fully explored in lower-resource settings. Our study compared patient processing times using standard care versus AOBP when indicated. Methods: We collected data on the processing times of patients at an urban community health center for 1 month using standard care, including data on a second BP taken when the initial BP was >140/90 mmHg. The following month, we piloted a protocol wherein an initial BP of >140/90 would be followed by AOBP. We then compared average patient processing times between the two groups. Results: Of the 157 adult BP measurements taken during the study, 20% (32/157) had an initial BP >140/90. During the month of standard care, the mean processing time was 8.25 minutes (SD=3.6), which was not significantly different during the month of AOBP use, 8.38 minutes (SD=3.6; Conclusions: The literature has established that AOBP may reduce clinical inertia by increasing confidence in BP accuracy. We conclude that AOBP protocol can be incorporated into clinic workflow without significantly impacting overall processing time.
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.