Trial reportBlood pressure monitoring2015
Comparisons of automated blood pressures in a primary health care setting with self-measurements at the office and at home using the Omron i-C10 device.
Trial report in Blood pressure monitoring, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Revisiting Unattended Versus Attended Automated Office Blood Pressure Measurements: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Pooled it
- Differences of blood pressure measured at clinic versus at home in the morning and in the evening in Europe and Asia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2022Pooled it
- Attended Versus Unattended Automated Office Blood Pressure: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.High blood pressure & cardiovascular prevention : the official journal of the Italian Society of Hypertension · 2019Pooled it
- A meta-analysis helps to clarify the use of automated office blood pressure in clinical practice.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2019Pooled it
- Unattended versus attended automated office blood pressure: Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies using the same methodology for both methods.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2019Pooled it
- Effect of self-initiated and fully-automated self-measurement on blood pressure.Journal of human hypertension · 2020Trial
- Home versus Clinic Blood Pressure Monitoring: Evaluating Applicability in Hypertension Management via Telemedicine.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Article
- Comparative analysis of visit and home blood pressure in a pilot trial on the effect of 18% sodium substitute salt on blood pressure.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Automated Office-Based Blood Pressure Measurement: an Overview and Guidance for Implementation in Primary Care.Current hypertension reports · 2019Review
- A meta-analysis that helps clarify the use of automated office blood pressure in clinical practice.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2019Article
- Office blood pressure measurement in the 21st century.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2018Article
- Automated Office Blood Pressure Measurement.Korean circulation journal · 2018Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe aimed to compare blood pressure (BP) levels recorded using the semiautomatic oscillometric Omron i-C10 BP device in patients with or without hypertension in three different settings: (a) when used by a doctor or a nurse at the office (OBP); (b) when used for self-measurement by the patient at the office (SMOBP); and (c) when used for 7 consecutive days at home (HBP). MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 247 individuals were invited to participate, but 78 of these individuals declined and a further seven were excluded, leaving a final cohort of 162 participants.
resultsThe mean OBP was higher than HBP (difference 8.1±14/3.1±8.8 mmHg, P<0.0001) and so was SMOBP compared with HBP (difference 7.0±13/4.2±7.3 mmHg, P<0.0001). Sixteen participants (9.9%) had at least 10 mmHg higher systolic SMOBP than OBP and 28 (17%) participants had at least 10 mmHg lower systolic SMOBP than OBP. Participants who were current smokers had a larger mean difference between systolic OBP and SMOBP than nonsmokers (OBP-SMOBP in smokers: 6.6±9.4 mmHg, OBP-SMOBP in nonsmokers: 0.5±9.2 mmHg, P=0.011 between groups).
conclusionSelf-measurement of BP in the office does not preclude an increase in BP when levels in the individual patients are compared with HBP using the same equipment. Thus, SMOBP with a semiautomatic device does not lead to a reduction in the white-coat effect in the same manner as fully automatic devices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.