Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37189558›Full record

ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2023

Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring for Diagnosis and Management of Hypertension in Pregnant Women.

Walter G Espeche, Martin R Salazar

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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.

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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The pathophysiology of pre-eclampsia.Nature reviews. Nephrology · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Walter G EspecheUnidad de Enfermedades Cardiometabólicas, Hospital General San Martín, La Plata 1900, Argentina.ORCID 0000-0003-1671-5601
Martin R SalazarDocencia e Investigación, Hospital San Martin de La Plata, La Plata 1900, Argentina.ORCID 0000-0002-7103-5505
Hospital Italiano La Plata · ARNational University of General San Martín · AR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Hypertension disorders during pregnancy has a wide range of severities, from a mild clinical condition to a life-threatening one. Currently, office BP is still the main method for the diagnosis of hypertension during pregnancy. Despite of the limitation these measurements, in clinical practice office BP of 140/90 mmHg cut point is used to simplify diagnosis and treatment decisions. The out-of-office BP evaluations are it comes to discarding white-coat hypertension with little utility in practice to rule out masked hypertension and nocturnal hypertension. In this revision, we analyzed the current evidence of the role of ABPM in diagnosing and managing pregnant women. ABPM has a defined role in the evaluation of BP levels in pregnant women, being appropriate performing an ABPM to classification of HDP before 20 weeks of gestation and second ABMP performed between 20-30 weeks of gestation to detected of women with a high risk of development of PE. Furthermore, we propose to, discarding white-coat hypertension and detecting masked chronic hypertension in pregnant women with office BP > 125/75 mmHg. Finally, in women who had PE, a third ABPM in the post-partum period could identify those with higher long-term cardiovascular risk related with masked hypertension.

Indexed as

ambulatory blood pressure monitoringhypertension disorder pregnancymasked hypertensionnocturnal hypertensionpreeclmpaisa

Identifiers

PMID37189558
PMCPMC10137869
OpenAlexW4366278955

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.