CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 216Blood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesCardiovascular Health and Disease PreventionNon-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparing Automated Office Blood Pressure Readings With Other Methods of Blood Pressure Measurement for Identifying Patients With Possible Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Open access
Roerecke, Michael, Kaczorowski, Janusz, Myers, Martin G.·2019·JAMA Internal Medicine
DOI 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.6551PMC PMC6439707
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Importance: Automated office blood pressure (AOBP) measurement involves recording several blood pressure (BP) readings using a fully automated oscillometric sphygmomanometer with the patient resting alone in a quiet place. Although several studies have shown AOBP measurement to be more accurate than routine office BP measurement and not subject to a "white coat effect," the cumulative evidence has not yet been systematically reviewed. Objective: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the association between AOBP and office BP readings measured in routine clinical practice and in research studies, and ambulatory BP recorded during awake hours, as the latter is a standard for predicting future cardiovascular events. Data Sources: The MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched from 2003 to April 25, 2018. Study Selection: Studies on systolic and diastolic BP measurement by AOBP in comparison with awake ambulatory BP, routine office BP, and research BP measurements were included if they contained 30 patients or more. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Study characteristics were abstracted independently and random effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions were conducted. Main Outcomes and Measures: Pooled mean differences (95% CI) of systolic and diastolic BP between types of BP measurement. Results: Data were compiled from 31 articles comprising 9279 participants (4736 men and 4543 women). In samples with systolic AOBP of 130 mm Hg or more, routine office and research systolic BP readings were substantially higher than AOBP readings, with a pooled mean difference of 14.5 mm Hg (95% CI, 11.8-17.2 mm Hg; n = 9; I2 = 94.3%; P < .001) for routine office systolic BP readings and 7.0 mm Hg (95% CI, 4.9-9.1 mm Hg; n = 9; I2 = 85.7%; P < .001) for research systolic BP readings. Systolic awake ambulatory BP and AOBP readings were similar, with a pooled mean difference of 0.3 mm Hg (95% CI, -1.1 to 1.7 mm Hg; n = 19; I2 = 90%; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Automated office blood pressure readings, only when recorded properly with the patient sitting alone in a quiet place, are more accurate than office BP readings in routine clinical practice and are similar to awake ambulatory BP readings, with mean AOBP being devoid of any white coat effect. There has been some reluctance among physicians to adopt this technique because of uncertainty about its advantages compared with more traditional methods of recording BP during an office visit. Based on the evidence, AOBP should now be the preferred method for recording BP in routine clinical practice.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.6551

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 56 references

3 of the 56 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2011, Hypertension NICE Clinical Guidelines 127

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 216

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Roerecke, M., Kaczorowski, J., & Myers, M. G.
Affiliations
  • Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CA)
  • Université de Montréal (CA)
  • Sunnybrook Health Science Centre (CA)
Corresponding author
Myers, Martin G.
ORCID
Venue
JAMA Internal Medicine
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
2019-03-01
Volume
179
Issue
3
Pages
351
ISSN
2168-6106 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.6551
PMC
PMC6439707
OpenAlex
W2913206674
Cited by
216
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 31
FWCI
24.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Non-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring
Keywords
automated office blood pressure, hypertension detection, white coat effect, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, office blood pressure measurement, automated sphygmomanometer, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, measurement agreement, cardiovascular risk prediction, hypertension screening, blood pressure measurement accuracy, cardiovascular event prediction, cardiovascular risk stratification, cardiovascular risk reduction, cardiovascular risk
MeSH terms
Automation, Blood Pressure Determination, Humans, Hypertension, Office Visits, Sphygmomanometers, White Coat Hypertension

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review