ArticleHypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979)2026
Association of Clinic Blood Pressure and Out-of-Clinic Blood Pressure Difference With Falls Among Older Adults With Hypertension.
Article in Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979), 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA barrier to intensification of antihypertensive medication among older adults with hypertension is the perceived risk of falls. Blood pressure (BP) measured in the clinic setting is primarily used to decide whether antihypertensive medication should be intensified. Scarce data exist on whether a lower out-of-clinic BP relative to in-clinic BP is associated with an increased risk of falls among older adults with hypertension.
methodsThe sample included 630 participants, enrolled from May 2019 to November 2022 from Kaiser Permanente Southern California, who were aged ≥65 years, had hypertension, were taking antihypertensive medication, and had not experienced a serious fall injury since their last clinic visit. The primary exposure was quartiles (Qs) of the difference between clinic systolic BP from the electronic health record and awake systolic BP on ambulatory BP monitoring. The primary outcome was time to the first fall, determined using monthly falls calendars over 12 months of follow-up.
resultsThe mean age (SD) was 74.6 (6.2) years with 56.5% female. During follow-up, 240 (38.1%) of the 630 participants fell. After adjusting for demographics, clinical characteristics, and geriatric measures, participants in Q4 (7.2-47.7 mm Hg) versus Q1-Q3 (-56.7 to <7.2 mm Hg) of clinic systolic BP from the electronic health record and awake systolic BP did not have an increased fall risk: adjusted hazard ratio, 0.79 (95% CI, 0.57-1.09).
conclusionsThere was no evidence of an association of a lower awake systolic BP on ambulatory BP monitoring relative to clinic systolic BP with an increased risk of falls.
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.