Trial reportJournal of human hypertension2026
Comparison of unattended, attended and routine clinic systolic blood pressure measurements and determinants of blood pressure difference between attended and unattended BP.
Trial report in Journal of human 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study compared unattended(uAOBP), attended(aAOBP) and routine clinic systolic blood pressures (SBP) and investigated the role of BP measurement sequence and aAOBP threshold on SBP difference between aAOBP and uAOBP. Eligible patients were randomized to the order of aAOBP and uAOBP measurements during a single clinic visit. aAOBP and uAOBP measurements were obtained under standardised conditions using an Omron HEM907 BP-monitor. Routine clinic BP(CBP) from the same visit was also obtained. 85 patients (mean age 69.9 ± 16.4 years, 52.9% males) underwent aAOBP and uAOBP measurements. CBP was available in 78. uAOBP was significantly lower than both aAOBP (mean difference 4.12 ± SD7.91 mmHg, P < 0.001) and CBP (mean difference 6.67 ± SD6.67 mmHg, P < 0.001). When comparing randomised groups, mean BP difference was significant in only those who underwent aAOBP measurement first (6.30 + 7.29 mmHg; P < 0.001), but not in those who underwent uAOBP measurement first (1.88 + 7.98 mmHg; P = 0.134). In subgroup analysis by aAOBP ≥130 mmHg(vs.<130 mmHg), the mean BP difference was significant in only those with an aAOBPs ≥130 mmHg (6.13 ± 0.07 mmHg, P < 001), but not in those with an aAOBPs <130 mmHg (1.63 + 7.05 mmHg, P = 0.162). Correlation and Bland-Altman analyses revealed closer correlation between uAOBP and aAOBP(r = 0.925, P < 0.001), with lower bias (4.12 mmHg) and narrower 95% limits of agreement (LoA) (-11.38, 19.62 mmHg), compared to clinic SBP (r = 0.784, P < 0.001; Bias: 6.67 mmHg; LoA:-20.67, 34.01 mmHg. An aAOBP of 140 mmHg corresponded to an uAOBP of 135.3 mmHg. Both CBP and aAOBP significantly overestimate uAOBP. BP differences are partly attributable to the sequence of BP measurement and the level of aAOBP.
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.