ArticleJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2019
Masked hypertensives: A disguised arterial stiffness population.
Article in Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Masked and white coat hypertension, the double trouble of large arteries: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2020Pooled it
- The Importance of Out-of-Office Blood Pressure Measurement, as Highlighted by the Correlation with Left Ventricular Hypertrophy in an Untreated Hypertensive Population.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- Measuring arterial stiffness in clinical practice: Moving one step forward.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2020Article
- The challenge of simplifying blood pressure screening in children and adolescents.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2020Article
- Masked hypertensives: A disguised arterial stiffness population.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2019Article
- Hypertension and arterial stiffness.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine whether masked hypertension (MHT) and white coat hypertension (WCHT) could be related to increased arterial stiffness and to identify the best office cutoff values of office BP for the diagnosis of MHT and WCHT. A total of 542 consecutive patients (50.2% male, age 42.5 ± 26.2 years) were included in the study. Patients were never treated before for hypertension. Patients were classified as true normotensives (44%), true hypertensives (30%), WC hypertensives (19%), and masked hypertensives (7%). Carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (c-f PWV) was 9.91 ± 0.20 m/s in true normotension, 10.26 ± 0.27 m/s in WCHT, 11.28 ± 0.47 m/s in MHT, and 11.86 ± 0.23 m/s in true hypertension after adjustment for age and sex. Decision limits yielding 65% sensitivity were 130 mm Hg for office systolic BP with 72% specificity for the diagnosis of MHT. The optimal cutoff value of 80 mm Hg for office diastolic BP provides 60% sensitivity and 68% specificity. Decision limits yielding 63% sensitivity were 150 mm Hg for office systolic BP with 72% specificity for the diagnosis of WCHT. The optimal cutoff value of 95 mm Hg for office diastolic BP provides 75% sensitivity and 51% specificity. The presence of MHT should be taken into account when increased c-f PWV is detected in the absence of office hypertension. The optimal office BP of 130/80 mm Hg provides the best sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of MHT. As regards the diagnosis of WCHT, the cutoff value of 150/95 mm Hg seems to provide the best option.
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.