ReviewCurrent hypertension reports2019
Automated Office-Based Blood Pressure Measurement: an Overview and Guidance for Implementation in Primary Care.
Review in Current hypertension reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-accuracy and patient experience assessment of blood pressure monitoring methods to diagnose hypertension: A comparative effectiveness study.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Optimal combinations of systolic and diastolic blood pressure in Korea: A nationwide population-based cohort study.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2021Article
- The RICH LIFE Project: A cluster randomized pragmatic trial comparing the effectiveness of health system only vs. health system Plus a collaborative/stepped care intervention to reduce hypertension disparities.American heart journal · 2020Article
- Preference of blood pressure measurement methods by primary care doctors in Hong Kong: a cross-sectional survey.BMC family practice · 2020Article
- Unattended automated office blood pressure measurement: Time efficiency and barriers to implementation/utilization.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2020Article
- The optimal use of automated office blood pressure measurement in clinical practice.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2020Review
- Impact of Clinic-Based Blood Pressure Approaches on Blood Pressure Measurement.American journal of hypertension · 2020Article
- Key Points of the 2019 Japanese Society of Hypertension Guidelines for the Management of Hypertension.Korean circulation journal · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewThe purposes of this study are to review evidence supporting the use of automated office blood pressure (AOBP) measurement and to provide practical guidance for implementing it in clinical settings. RECENT
findingsMean AOBP readings correlate with awake ambulatory blood pressure monitor (ABPM) values and predict cardiovascular outcomes better than conventional techniques. However, heterogeneity among readings suggests that AOBP does not replace ABPM. Blood pressure (BP) measurement protocols differ among commonly described AOBP devices, but all produce valid BP estimates. Rest periods should not precede AOBP with BpTRU devices but should occur before use with Omron HEM-907 and Microlife WatchBP Office devices. Attended and unattended AOBP appear to produce similar results. This review also describes a framework to aid AOBP's implementation in clinical practice. Evidence supports AOBP as the preferred method for measuring BP in office settings, but this approach should be a complement to out-of-office measurements, such as self-measured BP monitoring or 24-h ABPM, not a substitute for it.
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.