Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42667029›Full record

ArticleFederal practitioner : for the health care professionals of the VA, DoD, and PHS2025

Assessment of Automated vs Conventional Blood Pressure Measurements in a Veterans Affairs Clinical Practice Setting.

Daniela Valencia, Augustus Hough, Stephanie Kaiser

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Federal practitioner : for the health care professionals of the VA, DoD, and PHS, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Daniela ValenciaWest Palm Beach Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, Florida.
Augustus HoughWest Palm Beach Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, Florida.
Stephanie KaiserWest Palm Beach Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, Florida.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Automated office blood pressure (AOBP) measurement devices that generate multiple measurements of an unattended patient are increasingly common but their efficacy in a veteran population has not been determined. This study evaluated the difference between automated and conventional BP measurements obtained during cardiology clinic visits at the West Palm Beach VA Medical Center (WPBVAMC). Methods: This retrospective review compared BP measurements taken in the WPBVAMC cardiology clinic between May 2017 and February 2019. Data were evaluated with descriptive statistics. Where appropriate, paired comparisons of continuous and binary variables were evaluated with the paired Results: AOBP and conventional office BP measurements for 95 patients were included. AOBP measurements were taken with the patient sitting alone in a clinic office or in the nursing triage area. The mean values of systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) were lower for the AOBP method vs the conventional office measurement method, with a difference of 14.6 mm Hg ( Conclusions: This analysis suggests that the use of AOBP may reduce misclassification of patients with hypertension, prevent unnecessary therapeutic interventions, and mitigate the white coat effect.

Identifiers

PMID42667029
PMCPMC13524191

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.