PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
November 7, 2018Journal of Clinical Hypertension19 citationsOpen Access

Comparison of automated clinical and research blood pressure measurements: Implications for clinical practice and trial design

View Full Paper
OTOlive TangSJStephen P. JuraschekLALawrence J. Appel

Key Result

Standardized automated clinic blood pressure measurements were higher by 4.4/3.8 mm Hg (P=0.007/<0.001) and more variable than research measurements, potentially halving power in trials.

Study Design

Type

Observational

Multicenter

No

Structured PICO

Does standardized automated clinic blood pressure measurement differ from research blood pressure measurement?

P
Population
Patients with blood pressure measurements from both a primary care clinic and a randomized trial conducted at the same site
I
Intervention
Standardized automated clinic blood pressure measurement
C
Comparator
Research blood pressure measurement from a randomized trial
O
Outcome
Concordance between clinic and research blood pressure measurementssurrogate

Standardized automated clinic BP measurements are higher and more variable than research BP measurements, which could lead to overtreatment if research-based targets are applied in clinical practice.

Main Result

Effect estimate: Difference 4.4/3.8 mm Hg

p-value: p=0.007/<0.001

Abstract

Discrepancies between clinic and research blood pressure (BP) measurements lead to uncertainties in translating hypertension management guidelines into practice. We assessed the concordance between standardized automated clinic BP, from a primary care clinic, and research BP, from a randomized trial conducted at the same site. Mean single-visit clinic BP was higher by 4.4/3.8 mm Hg (P = 0.007/<0.001). Concordance in systolic BP (SBP) improved with closer proximity of measurements (difference = 2.5 mm Hg, P = 0.21 for visits within 7 days), but not averaging across multiple visits (difference =5.1(9.2) mm Hg; P < 0.001). This discrepancy was greater among female participants. Clinic-based difference in SBP between two visits was more variable than research-based change (SD = 19.6 vs 14.0; P = 0.002); a 2-arm trial using clinic measurements would need 95% more participants to achieve comparable power. Implementation of a bundled standardization intervention decreased discrepancies between clinic and research BP, compared to prior reports. However, clinic measurements remained higher and more variable, suggesting treatment to research-based targets may lead to overtreatment and using clinic BP approximately halves power in trials.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Tang et al. (2018) conducted an observational in Hypertension. Standardized automated clinic BP vs. Research BP was evaluated on Concordance between standardized automated clinic BP and research BP (Difference 4.4/3.8 mm Hg, p=0.007/<0.001). Standardized automated clinic blood pressure measurements were higher by 4.4/3.8 mm Hg (P=0.007/<0.001) and more variable than research measurements, potentially halving power in trials.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a0514b5fba2ba61ab55fccehttps://doi.org/10.1111/jch.13412
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Implications of Blood Pressure Measurement Technique for Implementation of Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT)2017 · 142 citations
  2. 2Measuring accuracy of sphygmomanometers in the medical practices of Swiss primary care physicians2013 · 7 citations
  3. 3Measuring Blood Pressure for Decision Making and Quality Reporting: Where and How Many Measures?2011 · 186 citations
  4. 4A Short History of Automated Office Blood Pressure – 15 Years to SPRINT2016 · 93 citations
  5. 5Use of automated office blood pressure measurement to reduce the white coat response2009 · 210 citations