Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33280228›Full record

Observational studyJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2021

Office blood pressure threshold of 130/80 mmHg better predicts uncontrolled out-of-office blood pressure in apparent treatment-resistant hypertension.

Chan Joo Lee, Jeong-Ha Ha, Jang Young Kim, In-Cheol Kim, Sung Kee Ryu, Moo-Yong Rhee, Ju-Hee Lee, Jung-Hee Lee, Hae-Young Lee, Sang-Hyun Ihm and 5 more

Erratum issued Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT03540992 (Development of Diagnostic and Treatment Strategy for Resistant Hypertension), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT03540992 unknown statusnot on this map

Development of Diagnostic and Treatment Strategy for Resistant Hypertension

TypeobservationalSponsorYonsei UniversityRan2018 to 2023Enrolled780ConditionsResistant Hypertension
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 11 institutions in 2 countries.

Chan Joo LeeDivision of Cardiology, Severance Cardiovascular Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Jeong-Ha HaDepartment of Health Promotion, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Jang Young KimDepartment of Internal Medicine, Wonju College of Medicine, Yonsei University, Wonju, Korea.
In-Cheol KimDivision of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Cardiovascular Center, Keimyung University Dongsan Hospital, Keimyung University College of Medicine, Daegu, Korea.
Sung Kee RyuDivision of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Eulji General Hospital, Eulji University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Moo-Yong RheeCardiovascular Center, College of Medicine, Dongguk University Ilsan Hospital, Dongguk University, Goyang, Korea.
Ju-Hee LeeDivision of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Chungbuk National University Hospital, Chungbuk National University College of Medicine, Cheongju, Korea.
Jung-Hee LeeDivision of Cardiology, Yeungnam University Medical Center, Yeungnam University College of Medicine, Daegu, Korea.
Hae-Young LeeDepartment of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-9521-4102
Sang-Hyun IhmDivision of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Bucheon St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea.
Joong Wha ChungDepartment of Internal Medicine, Chosun University School of Medicine, Kwangju, Korea.
Jung Hyun ChoiDivision of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Pusan National University Hospital, Pusan National University School of Medicine, Busan, Korea.
Jinho ShinDivision of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-6706-6504
Sungha ParkDivision of Cardiology, Severance Cardiovascular Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-5362-478X
Kazuomi KarioDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, Jichi Medical University School of Medicine, Tochigi, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-8251-4480
Yonsei University · KRYeungnam University Medical Center · KRChosun University · KRDongguk University Ilsan Hospital · KREulji University · KRHanyang University · KRJichi Medical University · JPKeimyung University · KRPusan National University Hospital · KRSeoul National University Hospital · KRThe Catholic University of Korea Bucheon St. Mary's Hospital · KR

Funding

CDC HHS 2018-ER6302-02
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of office blood pressure (BP) threshold of 140/90 and 130/80 mmHg for correctly identifying uncontrolled out-of-office BP in apparent treatment-resistant hypertension (aTRH). We analyzed 468 subjects from a prospectively enrolled cohort of patients with resistant hypertension in South Korea (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03540992). Resistant hypertension was defined as office BP ≥ 130/80 mmHg with three different classes of antihypertensive medications including thiazide-type/like diuretics, or treated hypertension with four or more different classes of antihypertensive medications. We conducted different types of BP measurements including office BP, automated office BP (AOBP), home BP, and ambulatory BP. We defined uncontrolled out-of-office BP as daytime BP ≥ 135/85 mmHg and/or home BP ≥ 135/85 mmHg. Among subjects with office BP < 140/90 mmHg and subjects with office BP < 130/80 mmHg, 66% and 55% had uncontrolled out-of-office BP, respectively. The prevalence of controlled and masked uncontrolled hypertension was lower, and the prevalence of white-coat and sustained uncontrolled hypertension was higher, with a threshold of 130/80 mmHg than of 140/90 mmHg, for both office BP and AOBP. The office BP threshold of 130/80 mmHg was better able to diagnose uncontrolled out-of-office BP than 140/90 mmHg, and the net reclassification improvement (NRI) was 0.255. The AOBP threshold of 130/80 mmHg also revealed better diagnostic accuracy than 140/90 mmHg, with NRI of 0.543. The office BP threshold of 130/80 mmHg showed better than 140/90 mmHg in terms of the correspondence to out-of-office BP in subjects with aTRH.

Indexed as

Blood PressureHypertensionAntihypertensive AgentsBlood Pressure DeterminationBlood Pressure Monitoring, AmbulatoryHumansRepublic of KoreaAntihypertensive Agentsoffice blood pressureout-of-office blood pressureresistant hypertension

Identifiers

PMID33280228
PMCPMC8029554
OpenAlexW3111406445

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.