ArticleAmerican journal of hypertension2025
Blood Pressure on Ambulatory Monitoring and Risk for Cardiovascular Disease and All-Cause Mortality: Ecological Validity or Measurement Reliability?
Article in American journal of hypertension, 2025. 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.
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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe association with cardiovascular disease (CVD) is stronger for mean systolic blood pressure (SBP) estimated using ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) vs. office measurements. Determining whether this is due to ABPM providing more measurement reliability or greater ecological validity can inform its use.
methodsWe estimated the association of mean SBP based on 2 office measurements and 2, 5, 10, and 20 measurements on ABPM with incident CVD in the Jackson Heart Study (n = 773). Hazard ratios (HRs) for CVD were estimated per standard deviation higher mean SBP. CVD events were defined by incident fatal or non-fatal stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or fatal coronary heart disease.
resultsThere were 80 CVD events over a median of 15 years. The adjusted HRs for incident CVD were 1.03 (95% CI: 0.90-1.19) for mean office SBP and 1.30 (95% CI: 1.12-1.50), 1.34 (95% CI: 1.15-1.56), 1.36 (95% CI: 1.17-1.59), and 1.38 (95% CI: 1.17-1.63) for mean SBP using the first 2, 5, 10, and 20 ABPM readings. The difference in the HRs for incident CVD ranged from 0.26 (95% CI: 0.07-0.46) to 0.35 (95% CI: 0.15-0.54) when comparing mean office SBP vs. 2, 5, 10, or 20 sequential ABPM readings. The association with incident CVD was also stronger for mean SBP based on 2, 5, 10, and 20 randomly selected ABPM readings vs. 2 office readings.
conclusionsMean SBP based on 2 ABPM readings vs. 2 office measurements had a stronger association with CVD events. The increase in the strength of the association with more ABPM readings was small.
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.