BACKGROUND: The magnitude of the 'white coat effect', the alerting rise in blood pressure, is greater for doctors than nurses. This could bias interpretation of studies on nurse-led care in hypertension, and risks overestimating or overtreating high blood pressure by doctors in clinical practice. AIM: To quantify differences between blood pressure measurements made by doctors and nurses. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review and meta-analysis using searches of MEDLINE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Embase, journal collections, and conference abstracts. METHOD: Studies in adults reporting mean blood pressures measured by doctors and nurses at the same visit were selected, and mean blood pressures extracted, by two reviewers. Study risk of bias was assessed using modified Cochrane criteria. Outcomes were pooled across studies using random effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: In total, 15 studies (11 hypertensive; four mixed hypertensive and normotensive populations) were included from 1899 unique citations. Compared with doctors' measurements, nurse-measured blood pressures were lower (weighted mean differences: systolic -7.0 [95% confidence interval {CI} = -4.7 to -9.2] mmHg, diastolic -3.8 [95% CI = -2.2 to -5.4] mmHg). For studies at low risk of bias, differences were lower: systolic -4.6 (95% CI = -1.9 to -7.3) mmHg; diastolic -1.7 (95% CI = -0.1 to -3.2) mmHg. White coat hypertension was diagnosed more frequently based on doctors' than on nurses' readings: relative risk 1.6 (95% CI =1.2 to 2.1). CONCLUSIONS: The white coat effect is smaller for blood pressure measurements made by nurses than by doctors. This systematic difference has implications for hypertension diagnosis and management. Caution is required in pooling data from studies using both nurse- and doctor-measured blood pressures.
BACKGROUND: The magnitude of the 'white coat effect', the alerting rise in blood pressure, is greater for doctors than nurses. This could bias interpretation of studies on nurse-led care in hypertension, and risks overestimating or overtreating high blood pressure by doctors in clinical practice. AIM: To quantify differences between blood pressure measurements made by doctors and nurses. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review and meta-analysis using searches of MEDLINE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Embase, journal collections, and conference abstracts. METHOD: Studies in adults reporting mean blood pressures measured by doctors and nurses at the same visit were selected, and mean blood pressures extracted, by two reviewers. Study risk of bias was assessed using modified Cochrane criteria. Outcomes were pooled across studies using random effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: In total, 15 studies (11 hypertensive; four mixed hypertensive and normotensive populations) were included from 1899 unique citations. Compared with doctors' measurements, nurse-measured blood pressures were lower (weighted mean differences: systolic -7.0 [95% confidence interval {CI} = -4.7 to -9.2] mmHg, diastolic -3.8 [95% CI = -2.2 to -5.4] mmHg). For studies at low risk of bias, differences were lower: systolic -4.6 (95% CI = -1.9 to -7.3) mmHg; diastolic -1.7 (95% CI = -0.1 to -3.2) mmHg. White coat hypertension was diagnosed more frequently based on doctors' than on nurses' readings: relative risk 1.6 (95% CI =1.2 to 2.1). CONCLUSIONS: The white coat effect is smaller for blood pressure measurements made by nurses than by doctors. This systematic difference has implications for hypertension diagnosis and management. Caution is required in pooling data from studies using both nurse- and doctor-measured blood pressures.
Entities:
Keywords:
blood pressure determination; primary health care; white coat hypertension; white coat syndrome
Authors: D F Stroup; J A Berlin; S C Morton; I Olkin; G D Williamson; D Rennie; D Moher; B J Becker; T A Sipe; S B Thacker Journal: JAMA Date: 2000-04-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Giuseppe Mancia; Robert Fagard; Krzysztof Narkiewicz; Josep Redón; Alberto Zanchetti; Michael Böhm; Thierry Christiaens; Renata Cifkova; Guy De Backer; Anna Dominiczak; Maurizio Galderisi; Diederick E Grobbee; Tiny Jaarsma; Paulus Kirchhof; Sverre E Kjeldsen; Stéphane Laurent; Athanasios J Manolis; Peter M Nilsson; Luis Miguel Ruilope; Roland E Schmieder; Per Anton Sirnes; Peter Sleight; Margus Viigimaa; Bernard Waeber; Faiez Zannad Journal: J Hypertens Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 4.844
Authors: Bryce C Rhodehouse; Jerry Fan; Wencong Chen; Michael J McNeal; Charis G Durham; John P Erwin Journal: Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent) Date: 2019-07-22
Authors: John N Booth; Demetria Hubbard; Swati Sakhuja; Yuichiro Yano; Paul K Whelton; Jackson T Wright; Daichi Shimbo; Paul Muntner Journal: Hypertension Date: 2019-06-24 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Romsai T Boonyasai; Kathryn A Carson; Jill A Marsteller; Katherine B Dietz; Gary J Noronha; Yea-Jen Hsu; Sarah J Flynn; Jeanne M Charleston; Greg P Prokopowicz; Edgar R Miller; Lisa A Cooper Journal: J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) Date: 2017-12-21 Impact factor: 3.738
Authors: Maria E Lacruz; Alexander Kluttig; Saskia Hartwig; Markus Löer; Daniel Tiller; Karin H Greiser; Karl Werdan; Johannes Haerting Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 1.889
Authors: James P Sheppard; Ben Fletcher; Paramjit Gill; Una Martin; Nia Roberts; Richard J McManus Journal: Am J Hypertens Date: 2015-09-22 Impact factor: 2.689