ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2019
Using out-of-office blood pressure measurements in established cardiovascular risk scores: a secondary analysis of data from two blood pressure monitoring studies.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Absolute cardiovascular risk assessment using 'real world' clinic blood pressures compared to standardized unobserved and ambulatory methods: an observational study.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2024Observational
- Clinical applications for out-of-office blood pressure monitoring.Therapeutic advances in chronic disease · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBlood pressure (BP) measurement is increasingly carried out through home or ambulatory monitoring, yet existing cardiovascular risk scores were developed for use with measurements obtained in clinics.
aimTo describe differences in cardiovascular risk estimates obtained using ambulatory or home BP measurements instead of clinic readings. DESIGN AND
settingSecondary analysis of data from adults aged 25-84 years in the UK and the Netherlands without prior history of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in two BP monitoring studies: the Blood Pressure in different Ethnic groups (BP-Eth) study and the Home versus Office blood pressure MEasurements: Reduction of Unnecessary treatment Study (HOMERUS).
methodThe primary comparison was Framingham risk calculated using BP measured as in the Framingham study or daytime ambulatory BP measurements. Statistical significance was determined using non-parametric tests.
resultsIn 442 BP-Eth patients (mean age = 58 years, 50% female [
conclusionEstimates of cardiovascular risk are similar when calculated using BP measurements obtained as in the risk score derivation study or through ambulatory monitoring. Further research is required to determine if differences in estimated risk would meaningfully influence risk score accuracy.
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.