Literature DB >> 30585383

Unattended versus attended automated office blood pressure: Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies using the same methodology for both methods.

Anastasios Kollias1, Emelina Stambolliu1, Konstantinos G Kyriakoulis1, Areti Gravvani1, George S Stergiou1.   

Abstract

There is increasing interest in unattended automated office blood pressure (OBP) measurement, which gives lower blood pressure values than the conventional auscultatory OBP. Whether unattended automated OBP differs from standardized attended automated OBP performed using the same device and measurement protocol remains uncertain. A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies (aggregate data) comparing unattended vs attended automated OBP using the same device and measurement protocol (conditions, number of measurements, visits) was performed. Ten eligible studies (n = 1004, weighted age 60.8 ± 4.2 [SD] years, 55% males) were analyzed. Unattended OBP (pooled systolic/diastolic 133.9 [95% CI: 129.7, 138]/80.6 [95% CI: 77, 84.2] mm Hg) did not differ from attended OBP (135.3 [95% CI: 130.9, 139.6]/81 [95% CI: 77.6, 84.3] mm Hg); pooled systolic OBP difference -1.3, 95% CI: -4.3, 1.7 mm Hg and diastolic -0.4, 95% CI: -1.2, 0.3 mm Hg. Nine of ten studies achieved high quality score and no publication bias was identified. Meta-regression analysis did not reveal any effect of age, gender, or attended systolic OBP on the unattended-attended systolic OBP difference (P = NS for all). However, there was a trend toward higher attended than unattended OBP at higher OBP levels. These data suggest that, when the same device and measurement protocol are used, attended automated OBP provides similar blood pressure values as unattended automated OBP. Although unattended automated OBP is theoretically advantageous as it ensures that standardized conditions and measurement protocol are used, attended automated OBP, if carefully performed, appears to be a reasonable and practical alternative. ©2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  clinic blood pressure; electronic; methodology; observer; unobserved

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30585383      PMCID: PMC8030301          DOI: 10.1111/jch.13462

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)        ISSN: 1524-6175            Impact factor:   3.738


  34 in total

1.  Evaluation of an automated sphygmomanometer for use in the office setting.

Authors:  Martin G Myers; Miguel Valdivieso
Journal:  Blood Press Monit       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 1.444

2.  Automated blood pressure self-measurement station compared to office blood pressure measurement for first trimester screening of pre-eclampsia.

Authors:  Louise Holm; Tone Stucke-Brander; Stefan Wagner; Puk Sandager; Jacob Schlütter; Camilla Lindahl; Niels Uldbjerg
Journal:  Health Informatics J       Date:  2018-09-25       Impact factor: 2.681

3.  Attended Versus Unattended Blood Pressure Measurement in a Real Life Setting.

Authors:  Frederic Bauer; Felix S Seibert; Benjamin Rohn; Klaus A R Bauer; Eckart Rolshoven; Nina Babel; Timm H Westhoff
Journal:  Hypertension       Date:  2017-12-18       Impact factor: 10.190

4.  Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias.

Authors:  C B Begg; M Mazumdar
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1994-12       Impact factor: 2.571

5.  Influence of SPRINT Study Type Automated Office Blood Pressure Measurements on Hypertension Diagnosis in Kidney Transplant Patients.

Authors:  Akanksha Bhatnagar; Ulrich Pein; Silke Markau; Karl Weigand; Paolo Fornara; Matthias Girndt; Eric Seibert
Journal:  Kidney Blood Press Res       Date:  2018-03-06       Impact factor: 2.687

6.  QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies.

Authors:  Penny F Whiting; Anne W S Rutjes; Marie E Westwood; Susan Mallett; Jonathan J Deeks; Johannes B Reitsma; Mariska M G Leeflang; Jonathan A C Sterne; Patrick M M Bossuyt
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2011-10-18       Impact factor: 25.391

7.  Unattended versus attended automated office blood pressure: Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies using the same methodology for both methods.

Authors:  Anastasios Kollias; Emelina Stambolliu; Konstantinos G Kyriakoulis; Areti Gravvani; George S Stergiou
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2018-12-25       Impact factor: 3.738

8.  Blood Pressure Measurement in SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial).

Authors:  Karen C Johnson; Paul K Whelton; William C Cushman; Jeffrey A Cutler; Gregory W Evans; Joni K Snyder; Walter T Ambrosius; Srinivasan Beddhu; Alfred K Cheung; Lawrence J Fine; Cora E Lewis; Mahboob Rahman; David M Reboussin; Michael V Rocco; Suzanne Oparil; Jackson T Wright
Journal:  Hypertension       Date:  2018-03-12       Impact factor: 10.190

9.  Attended and Unattended Automated Office Blood Pressure Measurements Have Better Agreement With Ambulatory Monitoring Than Conventional Office Readings.

Authors:  Emmanuel A Andreadis; Charalampia V Geladari; Epameinondas T Angelopoulos; Florentia S Savva; Anna I Georgantoni; Vasilios Papademetriou
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2018-04-07       Impact factor: 5.501

10.  A Short History of Automated Office Blood Pressure - 15 Years to SPRINT.

Authors:  Martin G Myers
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2016-04-01       Impact factor: 3.738

View more
  12 in total

Review 1.  Automated Office-Based Blood Pressure Measurement: an Overview and Guidance for Implementation in Primary Care.

Authors:  Romsai T Boonyasai; Erika L McCannon; Joseph E Landavaso
Journal:  Curr Hypertens Rep       Date:  2019-04-04       Impact factor: 5.369

2.  The Impact of Measurement Methods on Office Blood Pressure and Management of Hypertension in General Practice.

Authors:  Julia Höller; Linda Elizabeth Villagomez Fuentes; Klaus Matthias; Reinhold Kreutz
Journal:  High Blood Press Cardiovasc Prev       Date:  2019-11-09

Review 3.  Blood Pressure Measurement: A KDOQI Perspective.

Authors:  Paul E Drawz; Srinivasan Beddhu; Holly J Kramer; Michael Rakotz; Michael V Rocco; Paul K Whelton
Journal:  Am J Kidney Dis       Date:  2019-12-18       Impact factor: 8.860

4.  Unattended versus attended automated office blood pressure: Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies using the same methodology for both methods.

Authors:  Anastasios Kollias; Emelina Stambolliu; Konstantinos G Kyriakoulis; Areti Gravvani; George S Stergiou
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2018-12-25       Impact factor: 3.738

5.  Determination of optimal on-treatment diastolic blood pressure range using automated measurements in subjects with cardiovascular disease-Analysis of a SPRINT trial subpopulation.

Authors:  Piotr Sobieraj; Jacek Lewandowski; Maciej Siński; Zbigniew Gaciong
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2019-06-06       Impact factor: 3.738

6.  A meta-analysis helps to clarify the use of automated office blood pressure in clinical practice.

Authors:  Anastasios Kollias; Emelina Stambolliu; Konstantinos G Kyriakoulis; Areti Gravvani; George S Stergiou
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2019-03-04       Impact factor: 3.738

7.  A meta-analysis that helps clarify the use of automated office blood pressure in clinical practice.

Authors:  Martin G Myers
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2019-03-04       Impact factor: 3.738

8.  Blood pressure targets in patients with chronic kidney disease: A critical evaluation of clinical-trial evidence and guideline recommendations.

Authors:  Panagiotis I Georgianos; Vasilios Vaios; Pantelis E Zebekakis; Vassilios Liakopoulos
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2020-04-13       Impact factor: 3.738

9.  Comparison between unattended automated office blood pressure and conventional office blood pressure under the environment of health checkup among Japanese general population.

Authors:  Hirofumi Sakuma; Naoki Nakagawa; Kiwamu Horiuchi; Taiki Hayasaka; Keisuke Maruyama; Jun Sawada; Akiho Minoshima; Takayuki Fujino; Toshiharu Takeuchi; Nobuyuki Sato; Shinobu Osanai; Naoyuki Hasebe
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2020-08-15       Impact factor: 3.738

Review 10.  Guideline-Driven Management of Hypertension: An Evidence-Based Update.

Authors:  Robert M Carey; Jackson T Wright; Sandra J Taler; Paul K Whelton
Journal:  Circ Res       Date:  2021-04-01       Impact factor: 17.367

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.