ArticleCurrent hypertension reviews2019
Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Cross-sectional Study.
Article in Current hypertension reviews, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Brazilian Guidelines for In-office and Out-of-office Blood Pressure Measurement - 2023.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2024Guideline
- Loss of Nocturnal Dipping in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus According to Diabetic Kidney Disease: The Role of Vitamin D Levels.Nutrients · 2026Article
- Abnormal blood pressure dipping pattern: frequency, determinants, and correlates in Diabetes Mellitus patients in the Cardiovascular Health Risk Assessment in Diabetes Mellitus (CHiD) study.Journal of diabetes and metabolic disorders · 2024Article
- Evaluating Blood Pressure Variability in Type 2 Diabetic Patients: An Insight into Non-Dipping Patterns and Their Clinical Implications.International journal of general medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAmbulatory blood pressure (ABP) monitoring in type 2 diabetes (T2DM) is not yet routine in clinical practice.
objectivesTo quantify abnormal ABP patterns and their associations with diabetic complications, and to assess the reliability of office blood pressure (OBP) for assessing BP in T2DM.
methodsIn a cross-sectional study, eligible patients with T2DM underwent OBP and 24- hour ABP measurements under standardized conditions and screening for diabetic complications.
results56 patients (mean age 67 ± 10 years, males 50%) completed assessment. 43(73%) had a known history of hypertension. Non-dipping and nocturnal systolic hypertension (SHT) were prevalent in 31(55%) and 32(57%) patients, respectively. 16(29%) demonstrated masked phenomenon, but only three (7%) demonstrated white coat effect. Nocturnal SHT had a significant association with composite microvascular complications independent of daytime systolic BP control (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.72(CI 1.41-4.25). There was no association between other abnormal ABP patterns and diabetic complications. The sensitivity and specificity of OBP for diagnosing HT or assessing BP control was 59% and 68% respectively. The positive and negative predictive values were 74% and 52% respectively.
conclusionNon-dipping, reverse dipping, nocturnal SHT and masked phenomenon are highly prevalent in patients with T2DM with or without a known history of hypertension. Compared with non-dipping, nocturnal SHT may be a stronger predictor of end organ damage. The reliability of OBP for assessing BP in T2DM is only modest. Patients with T2DM are likely to benefit from routine ABP monitoring.
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.