Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42468760›Full record

ReviewClinical medicine (London, England)2026

How useful is a casual BP measurement?

Philip S Lewis

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical medicine (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Cardiovascular disease: everybody's business.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Philip S LewisStockport NHS Foundation Trust, Stepping Hill Hospital, Stockport SK2 7JE, United Kingdom; University of Manchester, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester M13 9PT, United Kingdom. Electronic address: philip.lewis@stockport.nhs.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Blood pressure (BP) varies continuously dependent on numerous personal and external factors as well as on the way it is measured and the methodology used. A casual BP reading may give some clues about a person's cardiovascular health, but risk can only be determined with repeated careful measurements. If high (≥140/90), systematic measurement following approved guidelines using a validated monitor is necessary, especially if the person is symptomatic and/or BP ≥180/120. A low casual BP (<90/60) should be similarly rechecked, especially if related symptoms are present. Despite the availability of guidelines for measuring BP, there is often poor compliance with these standards leading to less-than-ideal risk assessment. The lack of regulation of what BP home monitors are available to purchase, ignorance about how to measure BP accurately, the use of unvalidated monitors and of incorrect cuff sizes may lead to significant under- or over-assessment of BP with potentially avoidable consequences. Casual BP measurements, especially if elevated, need a systematic non-casual approach to remeasurement and interpretation.

Indexed as

Blood PressureBlood Pressure DeterminationBlood Pressure Monitoring, AmbulatoryHumansHypertensionAmbulatory blood pressure measurementBlood pressure measurementBlood pressure variabilityCardiovascular riskCasual blood pressure measurementCuff sizeHome blood pressure measurementMeasurement errorMeasurement standardsWard blood pressure measurement

Identifiers

PMID42468760
PMCPMC13475199

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.