ArticleJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2025
Analysis of the Accuracy of Unattended Automated Blood Pressure Measurements and Control of Blood Pressure Thresholds: A Multicenter Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence in Cardiovascular Medicine: A Giant Step in Personalized Medicine?Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate blood pressure measurement is fundamental for the diagnosis and management of hypertension. The emergence of u-AOBP has been proposed as a potential alternative or complementary approach for assessing patients' blood pressure status within clinical settings. However, robust evidence is lacking to determine its application in diagnosing hypertension within the clinical practice in China. The study involved participants recruited from October 2023 to February 2024 at three different hospitals. Participants were provided with comprehensive study information, and informed consent was obtained. Standardized, validated upper arm blood pressure monitors were used to measure blood pressure. Baseline demographic data, anthropometric measurements, u-AOBP, and standard office blood pressure data were collected, along with additional examination results, including echocardiograms and 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. The optimal cutoff values for diagnosing elevated blood pressure using u-AOBP, determined by ROC curve analysis with the awake ambulatory blood pressure threshold of 135/85 mmHg as the gold standard, were 130.75/83.75 mmHg (sensitivity 89.73%, specificity 27.27%). In participants with a dipper blood pressure diurnal rhythm, there was no statistically significant difference between standard office blood pressure and u-AOBP measurements (p > 0.05). In conclusion, unattended automated office blood pressure measurement with the optimal cut-off values for diagnosing elevated blood pressure being 130.75/83.75 mmHg, and in the population with a normal dipper circadian rhythm, the standardized u-AOBP values can be equivalent to standard office blood pressure, but the low specificity of u-AOBP may affect the accuracy of identifying nonhypertensive individuals.
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.