Trial reportJournal of human hypertension2020
Effect of self-initiated and fully-automated self-measurement on blood pressure.
Trial report in Journal of human hypertension, 2020. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Office blood pressure measurement: A comprehensive review.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2021Review
- Factors Associated with Variations in Home Blood Pressure Monitoring among Adults with Hypertension: Systematic Review.SAGE open nursingReview
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Self-measurement of blood pressure (BP) is regularly used to diagnose hypertension and to monitor BP at home. We recently showed that self-measurement of BP may elicit a pressor or 'auto-cuff' response. In this study we examined whether the pressor response is different between self-initiated and fully-automated BP measurement. We performed two randomized crossover studies in outpatients visiting a hypertension clinic. The first cohort of 52 participants performed six unattended self-initiated and six fully-automated BP measurements, while continuously monitoring BP and central haemodynamics using finger photoplethysmography. The second cohort consisted of 120 patients who performed three self-initiated and three fully-automated BP measurements. In the first cohort (mean age 61.2 ± 10.4 years, mean office BP 142.0 ± 19.9/82.5 ± 12.2 mmHg, 36.7% female) average systolic and diastolic BP increased by 7.3 ± 8.5/3.3 ± 4.0 mmHg in the group with self-initiated BP measurements, while BP increased by 3.3 ± 6.3/1.4 ± 3.0 mmHg during fully-automated measurements (p = 0.002/p = 0.002 for difference between groups). The higher BP increase during self-initiated BP measurements resulted from an increase in heart rate and cardiac output. In the second cohort (mean age 58.0 ± 14.1 years, mean office BP 153.6 ± 23.8/86.3 ± 14.0 mmHg, 44.1% female) self-initiated BP measurement resulted in a 2.1 ± 6.8/0.9 ± 4.0 mmHg higher systolic and diastolic BP compared with fully-automated self-measurement (p = 0.001/0.018). In conclusion, our findings suggest that self-initiated BP measurement using a fully-automated method results in a more reliable BP compared with a self-initiated semi-automated method by attenuating the auto-cuff response. These findings may have implications for the self-measurement of BP.
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.