Yacong Bo1, Kin-On Kwok1, Kareen Ka-Yin Chu2, Eppie Yu-Han Leung1, Chun Pong Yu3, Samuel Yeung-Shan Wong1, Eric Kam-Pui Lee4,5. 1. Jockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China. 2. Department of Continuing Education, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 3. Li Ping Medical Library, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China. 4. Jockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China. lkp032@cuhk.edu.hk. 5. Room 402, School of Public Health, Prince of Wales Hospital, Shatin, Hong Kong. lkp032@cuhk.edu.hk.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Automated office blood pressure (AOBP) measurements may provide more accurate estimation of blood pressure (BP) than manual office blood pressure (MOBP) measurements. This systematic review investigated the diagnostic performance of AOBP and MOBP using ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM) as reference. Several databases including MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and China Academic Journals were searched. Data were extracted, double-checked by two investigators, and were analysed using a random effects model. RECENT FINDINGS: A total of 26 observational studies were included. The mean systolic/diastolic BP obtained by AOBP was not significantly different from that obtained by ABPM. The sensitivity and specificity of AOBP to detect elevated BP were approximately 70%. Fewer participants had white-coat hypertension on AOBP measurement than on MOBP measurement (7% versus 14%); however, about 13% had masked hypertension on AOBP measurement. The width of the limit of agreement comparing (i) AOBP and ABPM and (ii) MOBP and ABPM was comparable. AOBP may reduce the rate of the observed white-coat effect but undermine masked hypertension. The current recommendation, however, is limited by the absence of high-quality studies and the high heterogeneity of our results. More high-quality studies using different AOBP machines and in different population are therefore needed.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Automated office blood pressure (AOBP) measurements may provide more accurate estimation of blood pressure (BP) than manual office blood pressure (MOBP) measurements. This systematic review investigated the diagnostic performance of AOBP and MOBP using ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM) as reference. Several databases including MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and China Academic Journals were searched. Data were extracted, double-checked by two investigators, and were analysed using a random effects model. RECENT FINDINGS: A total of 26 observational studies were included. The mean systolic/diastolic BP obtained by AOBP was not significantly different from that obtained by ABPM. The sensitivity and specificity of AOBP to detect elevated BP were approximately 70%. Fewer participants had white-coat hypertension on AOBP measurement than on MOBP measurement (7% versus 14%); however, about 13% had masked hypertension on AOBP measurement. The width of the limit of agreement comparing (i) AOBP and ABPM and (ii) MOBP and ABPM was comparable. AOBP may reduce the rate of the observed white-coat effect but undermine masked hypertension. The current recommendation, however, is limited by the absence of high-quality studies and the high heterogeneity of our results. More high-quality studies using different AOBP machines and in different population are therefore needed.
Authors: Martin G Myers; Marshall Godwin; Martin Dawes; Alexander Kiss; Sheldon W Tobe; Janusz Kaczorowski Journal: Hypertension Date: 2009-12-28 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Alexander A Leung; Stella S Daskalopoulou; Kaberi Dasgupta; Kerry McBrien; Sonia Butalia; Kelly B Zarnke; Kara Nerenberg; Kevin C Harris; Meranda Nakhla; Lyne Cloutier; Mark Gelfer; Maxime Lamarre-Cliche; Alain Milot; Peter Bolli; Guy Tremblay; Donna McLean; Karen C Tran; Sheldon W Tobe; Marcel Ruzicka; Kevin D Burns; Michel Vallée; G V Ramesh Prasad; Steven E Gryn; Ross D Feldman; Peter Selby; Andrew Pipe; Ernesto L Schiffrin; Philip A McFarlane; Paul Oh; Robert A Hegele; Milan Khara; Thomas W Wilson; S Brian Penner; Ellen Burgess; Praveena Sivapalan; Robert J Herman; Simon L Bacon; Simon W Rabkin; Richard E Gilbert; Tavis S Campbell; Steven Grover; George Honos; Patrice Lindsay; Michael D Hill; Shelagh B Coutts; Gord Gubitz; Norman R C Campbell; Gordon W Moe; Jonathan G Howlett; Jean-Martin Boulanger; Ally Prebtani; Gregory Kline; Lawrence A Leiter; Charlotte Jones; Anne-Marie Côté; Vincent Woo; Janusz Kaczorowski; Luc Trudeau; Ross T Tsuyuki; Swapnil Hiremath; Denis Drouin; Kim L Lavoie; Pavel Hamet; Jean C Grégoire; Richard Lewanczuk; George K Dresser; Mukul Sharma; Debra Reid; Scott A Lear; Gregory Moullec; Milan Gupta; Laura A Magee; Alexander G Logan; Janis Dionne; Anne Fournier; Geneviève Benoit; Janusz Feber; Luc Poirier; Raj S Padwal; Doreen M Rabi Journal: Can J Cardiol Date: 2017-03-10 Impact factor: 5.223
Authors: Bryan Williams; Giuseppe Mancia; Wilko Spiering; Enrico Agabiti Rosei; Michel Azizi; Michel Burnier; Denis L Clement; Antonio Coca; Giovanni de Simone; Anna Dominiczak; Thomas Kahan; Felix Mahfoud; Josep Redon; Luis Ruilope; Alberto Zanchetti; Mary Kerins; Sverre E Kjeldsen; Reinhold Kreutz; Stephane Laurent; Gregory Y H Lip; Richard McManus; Krzysztof Narkiewicz; Frank Ruschitzka; Roland E Schmieder; Evgeny Shlyakhto; Costas Tsioufis; Victor Aboyans; Ileana Desormais Journal: J Hypertens Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 4.844
Authors: Michelle M O'Shaughnessy; Martin Durcan; Sinead M Kinsella; Matthew D Griffin; Donal N Reddan; David W Lappin Journal: Perit Dial Int Date: 2013-04-01 Impact factor: 1.756
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