Evidence mapPaperPMID 34131027Full record

SynthesisCMAJ open

Home blood pressure monitoring in the diagnosis and treatment of hypertension in pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Karen Tran, Raj Padwal, Nadia Khan, Mary-Doug Wright, Wee Shian Chan

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in CMAJ open. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: definition, management, and out-of-office blood pressure measurement.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2022
    Review
  13. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Karen TranDivision of General Internal Medicine (Tran, Khan, Chan), Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia; Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences (Tran, Khan); and Apex Information (Wright), Vancouver, BC; Division of General Internal Medicine (Padwal), Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta. karen.tran4@vch.ca.
Raj PadwalDivision of General Internal Medicine (Tran, Khan, Chan), Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia; Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences (Tran, Khan); and Apex Information (Wright), Vancouver, BC; Division of General Internal Medicine (Padwal), Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta.
Nadia KhanDivision of General Internal Medicine (Tran, Khan, Chan), Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia; Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences (Tran, Khan); and Apex Information (Wright), Vancouver, BC; Division of General Internal Medicine (Padwal), Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta.
Mary-Doug WrightDivision of General Internal Medicine (Tran, Khan, Chan), Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia; Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences (Tran, Khan); and Apex Information (Wright), Vancouver, BC; Division of General Internal Medicine (Padwal), Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta.
Wee Shian ChanDivision of General Internal Medicine (Tran, Khan, Chan), Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia; Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences (Tran, Khan); and Apex Information (Wright), Vancouver, BC; Division of General Internal Medicine (Padwal), Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHome blood pressure monitoring is increasingly used for pregnant individuals; however, there are no guidelines on such monitoring in this population. We assessed current practices in the prescription and use of home blood pressure monitoring in pregnancy.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We conducted a structured search through the MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974) and CENTRAL (from 2018) databases up to Oct. 19, 2020. We included trials comparing office and home blood pressure monitoring in pregnant people. Outcomes included patient education, home blood pressure device, monitoring schedule, adherence, diagnostic thresholds for home blood pressure, and comparison between home and office measurements of blood pressure.

resultsWe included in our review 21 articles on 19 individual studies (1 RCT, 18 observational) that assessed home and office blood pressure in pregnant individuals (

interpretationMany issues related to home blood pressure monitoring in pregnancy are currently unresolved, including technique, monitoring schedule and target values. Future studies should prioritize the use of validated home measuring devices and standardized measurement schedules and should establish treatment targets. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42020147352.

Indexed as

Blood Pressure Monitoring, AmbulatoryDimensional Measurement AccuracyFemaleHumansHypertensionHypertension, Pregnancy-InducedPregnancyPregnancy Complications, Cardiovascular

Identifiers

PMID34131027
PMCPMC8248564

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.