Key result
Usual clinical blood pressure measurement yielded systolic readings 6.2 mmHg (95% CI 3.1-9.3) higher than standardized techniques, leading to misclassification of hypertension in 42% of patients.
Why the study?
Does usual (casual) blood pressure measurement differ from standardized measurement in classifying hypertension and correlating with left ventricular mass index in adult patients?
Population
Adult patients undergoing blood pressure measurement
Comparison
Usual technique for blood pressure measurement… vs Standardized technique for blood pressure…
Design
Cross-sectional
Authors
Loading...
Casual BP readings may overestimate hypertension; challenges routine practice and leaves open prospective validation of standardized techniques.
Observational
Does usual (casual) blood pressure measurement differ from standardized measurement in classifying hypertension and correlating with left ventricular mass index in adult patients?
Effect estimate: Mean difference 6.2 mmHg (95% CI 3.1-9.3)
Standardized blood pressure measurement is crucial for accurate hypertension classification and correlates better with target organ damage (LVMI) than casual measurement.
Campbell et al. (1999) conducted an observational in Blood pressure measurement. Usual (casual) blood pressure measurement vs. Standardized blood pressure measurement was evaluated on Difference in systolic blood pressure readings (Mean difference 6.2 mmHg, 95% CI 3.1-9.3). Usual clinical blood pressure measurement yielded systolic readings 6.2 mmHg (95% CI 3.1-9.3) higher than standardized techniques, leading to misclassification of hypertension in 42% of patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: