ArticleScientific reports2023
Utility of standing office blood pressure in detecting hypertension in healthy adults.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Current guidelines recommend office blood pressures (BP) be taken in a seated position when screening for hypertension (HTN). Seated BP is known to have limited accuracy in detecting high BP, while the utility of standing BP in diagnosing HTN is unknown. We conducted a cross-sectional study to determine the incremental value of standing BP in diagnosing HTN. Seated, standing, and 24-h ambulatory BPs (ABPM) were obtained in adults without known cardiovascular disease, HTN, or BP medication use. Presence of HTN was defined by the 2017 ACC/AHA and the 2023 ESH HTN guidelines based on ABPM. Area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve (AUROC) was used to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of seated and standing BP. Sensitivity and specificity of standing BP was determined using cut-offs derived from Youden's Index, while sensitivity and specificity of seated BP was determined using the cut-off of 130/80 mmHg and by 140/90 mmHg. Among 125 participants (mean age 49 ± 17 years; 62% female; 24% Black), 33.6% of them had HTN. Sensitivity and specificity of seated systolic BP (SBP) was 43% and 92%, respectively. Cut-offs selected by Youden's index for standing SBP/diastolic BP (DBP) were 124/81 mmHg according to the 2017 ACC/AHA HTN guidelines, and 123.5/83.5 mmHg according to the 2023 ESH HTN guidelines. Sensitivity and specificity of standing SBP was 71% and 67%, respectively. The AUROC of standing SBP (0.81 [0.71-0.92]) was significantly higher than seated SBP (0.70 [0.49-0.91]), when HTN was defined as average 24-h SBP ≥ 125 mmHg. Moreover, the addition of standing to seated SBP (0.80 [0.68-0.92]) improved HTN detection when compared to seated SBP. These patterns were consistent for both the 2017 ACC/AHA and the 2023 ESH definitions for HTN. In summary, standing BP, alone or in combination with seated BP, outperformed seated BP alone in diagnosing HTN in adults.
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.