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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Measurement bias on office BP may be overcome by the use of AOBP, which automatically measures BP a few times in the absence of health care professionals and may eliminate white-coat effects. 32”
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
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & the PRISMA Group* (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 · Cited by 37,554
Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis
Higgins, J. P. T., & Thompson, S. G. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1186 · Cited by 36,763
Wan, X., Wang, W., Liu, J., & Tong, T. (2014) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-135 · Cited by 11,735
Whelton, P. K., Carey, R. M., Aronow, W. S., Casey, D. E., Collins, K. J., Dennison Himmelfarb, C., DePalma, S. M., Gidding, S., Jamerson, K. A., Jones, D. W., et al. (2018) · Hypertension · doi:10.1161/hyp.0000000000000065 · Cited by 7,391
Whelton, P. K., Carey, R. M., Aronow, W. S., Casey, D. E., Collins, K. J., Dennison Himmelfarb, C., DePalma, S. M., Gidding, S., Jamerson, K. A., Jones, D. W., et al. (2018) · Hypertension · doi:10.1161/hyp.0000000000000066 · Cited by 4,347
How should meta‐regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted?
Thompson, S. G., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1187 · Cited by 3,026
Higgins (2002) · doi:10.1002/(issn)1097-0258 · Cited by 1,248
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2011, Hypertension NICE Clinical Guidelines 127
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Mancia, G., Kreutz, R., Brunström, M., Burnier, M., Grassi, G., Januszewicz, A., Muiesan, M. L., Tsioufis, K., Agabiti-Rosei, E., Algharably, E. A. E., et al. (2023) · Journal of Hypertension · doi:10.1097/hjh.0000000000003480 · Cited by 3,473
Cheung, A. K., Chang, T. I., Cushman, W. C., Furth, S. L., Hou, F. F., Ix, J. H., Knoll, G. A., Muntner, P., Pecoits-Filho, R., Sarnak, M. J., et al. (2021) · Kidney International · doi:10.1016/j.kint.2020.11.003 · Cited by 1,452
Jones, D. W., Ferdinand, K. C., Taler, S. J., Johnson, H. M., Shimbo, D., Abdalla, M., Altieri, M. M., Bansal, N., Bello, N. A., Bress, A. P., et al. (2025) · Hypertension · doi:10.1161/hyp.0000000000000249 · Cited by 424
Jones, D. W., Ferdinand, K. C., Taler, S. J., Johnson, H. M., Shimbo, D., Abdalla, M., Altieri, M. M., Bansal, N., Bello, N. A., Bress, A. P., et al. (2025) · JACC · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2025.05.007 · Cited by 280
Jones, D. W., Ferdinand, K. C., Taler, S. J., Johnson, H. M., Shimbo, D., Abdalla, M., Altieri, M. M., Bansal, N., Bello, N. A., Bress, A. P., et al. (2025) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/cir.0000000000001356 · Cited by 335
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.
- Venue
- JAMA Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2019-03-01
- Volume
- 179
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 351
- ISSN
- 2168-6106 (ISSN-L)
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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
