Trial reportJournal of hypertension2026
Wrist-type home blood pressure monitoring device improves usability and preserves sleep quality compared with conventional ambulatory monitoring.
Trial report in Journal of hypertension, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare usability and impact on sleep quality of a wrist-type home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) device and a conventional upper-arm 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) device.
methodsIn this randomized crossover study, 60 community-dwelling individuals aged 50-80 years from the Reviving Early Detection of cardiovascular disease in the Utrecht Health Project (RED-LRGP) trial underwent wrist-type HBPM (Omron HEM-9601T) and upper-arm ABPM. HBPM included three nocturnal measurements per night (4 h after bedtime, 02 : 00, and 04 : 00) for five nights, with additional morning and evening daytime measurements. ABPM included a single 24-h period with hourly cuff inflations. After each monitoring period, participants completed the system usability scale (SUS) and visual analogue scale (VAS) for sleep quality. Linear mixed-effects models were used to compare usability (SUS) and sleep quality (VAS) between devices.
resultsSixty participants (mean age 58 years, 57% female, 23% hypertensive) completed questionnaires. HBPM showed higher usability (SUS 71.9 versus 52.4; P < 0.0001) and better sleep quality (VAS 74.6 versus 58.9; P < 0.0001) than ABPM. With five nightly HBPM measurements, nocturnal hypertension was detected in 27-39% of participants. This was 26% using single-night ABPM measurement. Nondipping patterns occurred in 7-14% with HBPM versus 25% using ABPM. Sixteen participants without obesity, hypertension, or other relevant comorbidities (27%) were classified as HBPM nondippers on ≥1 night.
conclusionsWrist-type HBPM, combining multinight automated monitoring with high usability and minimal sleep disruption represents a feasible, patient-centered tool for home-based nocturnal BP assessment that has the potential to capture night-to-night BP variability.
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.