Observational studyAnnals of African medicine2026
To Compare Different Blood Pressure Measurement Techniques in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease.
Observational study in Annals of African medicine, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate blood pressure (BP) measurement is critical in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) due to its strong association with cardiovascular morbidity and progression of renal dysfunction. While ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) is considered the gold standard, it is often impractical in routine settings. This study compares manual office BP (MOBP), automated office BP (AOBP), and ABPM to evaluate diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility in CKD patients. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis cross-sectional observational study was conducted in 120 patients with established CKD. BP measurements were recorded using MOBP, AOBP, and ABPM over a 24-h period. Comparative analysis was performed for systolic and diastolic BP values, uncontrolled hypertension, and identification of phenotypes such as white-coat hypertension (WCH) and masked hypertension (MHT). Statistical significance was evaluated using paired t -tests and ROC curve analysis.
resultsMean systolic and diastolic BP values were significantly higher with MOBP (131.55 ± 16.88/87.42 ± 10.56 mmHg) compared to ABPM (130.11 ± 17.60/84.35 ± 10.81 mmHg, P < 0.05). AOBP values closely matched ABPM (130.45 ± 17.53/84.63 ± 10.80 mmHg, P > 0.4). Uncontrolled hypertension was noted in 30.8% (MOBP, AOBP) and 27.5% (ABPM). WCH and MHT were identified in 6.5% and 3.5% of patients, respectively. AOBP demonstrated high sensitivity (95.8%) and specificity (94.4%) relative to ABPM.
conclusionAOBP closely approximates ABPM and can be considered a reliable alternative for BP evaluation in CKD patients, particularly in resource-limited settings. MOBP significantly overestimates BP and may lead to diagnostic misclassification.
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.