SynthesisJournal of the American Heart Association2025
Revisiting Unattended Versus Attended Automated Office Blood Pressure Measurements: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of the American Heart Association, 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.
- Factors Associated With Discordant Blood Pressure Measures among Very Old Adults: Results From the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study.Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStandardized automated office blood pressure (AOBP) measurement is widely accepted as the preferred method for monitoring blood pressure (BP) in health care settings. However, disagreements persist as to the need to perform AOBP unattended, where the patient is left alone in a quiet room. Thus, this study aimed to assess the BP differences between unattended and attended AOBP.
methodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and registered on PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews). Studies were included if unattended and attended AOBP measurements were performed on the same participants in a randomized or alternating sequence order during a single visit, using the same device and measurement protocol. The primary outcome was the difference between unattended and attended systolic BP and the secondary outcome, the difference in diastolic BP. Pooled results were expressed as weighted mean differences (95% CI) obtained using random-effects meta-analysis.
resultsFrom 8088 screened studies, data were extracted from 15 studies (n=1747 participants). The unattended systolic BP and diastolic BP were -2.7 (-4.7 to -0.6) and -0.9 (-1.8 to -0.1) mm Hg lower than attended BPs. In a leave-one-out analysis, the overall difference was largely driven by a single outlier study. After excluding that study, the estimated difference was -2.0 mmHg (95% CI -4.1 to 0.0).
conclusionsStandardized unattended AOBP measurements result in slightly lower readings than attended AOBP. Whether these small measurement differences translate into clinically significant changes in management remains uncertain. Therefore, attended AOBP appears to be a reasonable option for BP measurement in a real-world clinical setting.
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.