Key result
A single duplicate home blood pressure reading accurately assessed hypertension status in 62.5% of participants (AUC 0.94; 95% CI 0.93-0.95), with 1.1% false positives and 4.7% false negatives.
Why the study?
Does a single duplicate home blood pressure reading accurately determine hypertension status compared to a full measurement series in a working population?
Cross-Sectional (n=1,473)
Does a single duplicate home blood pressure reading accurately determine hypertension status compared to a full measurement series in a working population?
Effect estimate: AUC 0.94 (95% CI 0.93-0.95)
A single duplicate home blood pressure reading can accurately determine hypertension status in nearly two-thirds of a working population, potentially reducing the burden of completing a full 12-measurement series for screening.
May streamline initial hypertension screening in working adults; leaves open prospective validation before broader adoption.
BACKGROUND: Guidelines on home blood pressure measurement (HBPM) recommend taking at least 12 measurements. For screening purposes, however, it is preferred to reduce this number. We therefore derived and validated cut-off values to determine hypertension status after the first duplicate reading of a HBPM series in a web-based worksite health promotion programme. METHOD: Nine hundred forty-five employees were included in the derivation and 528 in the validation cohort, which was divided into a normal (n = 297) and increased cardiometabolic risk subgroup (n = 231), and a subgroup with a history of hypertension (n = 98). Six duplicate home measurements were collected during three consecutive days. Systolic and diastolic readings at the first duplicate measurement were used as predictors for hypertension in a multivariate logistic model. Cut-off values were determined using receiver operating characteristics analysis. RESULTS: Upper (≥ 150 or ≥ 95 mmHg) and lower limit (<135 and <80 mmHg) cut-off values were derived to confirm or reject presence of hypertension after one duplicate reading. The area under the curve was 0.94 (standard error 0.01, 95% confidence interval 0.93-0.95). In 62.5% of participants, hypertension status was determined, with 1.1% false positive and 4.7% false negatives. Performance was similar in participants with high and low cardiometabolic risk, but worse in participants with a history of hypertension (10.4% false negatives). CONCLUSION: One duplicate home reading is sufficient to accurately assess hypertension status in 62.5% of participants, leaving 37.5% in which the whole HBPM series needs to be completed. HBPM can thus be reliably used as screening tool for hypertension in a working population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Niessen et al. (2013) conducted a cross-sectional in Hypertension (n=1,473). First duplicate reading of a home blood pressure measurement series vs. Full 12-measurement series was evaluated on Presence of hypertension (AUC 0.94, 95% CI 0.93-0.95). A single duplicate home blood pressure reading accurately assessed hypertension status in 62.5% of participants (AUC 0.94; 95% CI 0.93-0.95), with 1.1% false positives and 4.7% false negatives.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: