The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Home Self Blood Pressure Measurement in General Practice The SMART Study
Abstract
The SMART study (Self-Measurement for the Assessment of the Response to Trandolapril) was performed in general practice and enrolled 1710 patients in order to assess on a large scale the feasibility and informative value of self-measurement of blood pressure at home (SMBP), define home blood pressure (BP) levels in comparison to office readings, and determine the number of home measurements necessary to provide an accurate and precise BP value. After a 2-week washout period, patients with office diastolic blood pressure within the range 95 to 119 mm Hg received 2 mg trandolapril once daily in the morning for 4 weeks. Four days of SMBP were performed both at the end of the washout period and the end of the treatment period, with an automatic printer-equipped oscillometric device (A&D UA751). The first day values were not analyzed. Thus, the maximum number of BP measurements obtained per patient and per period was 18. Four hundred and twenty-four patients (25%) did not perform any measurements. One thousand one hundred and nine patients (65%) performed at least 4 measurements. Among them, 619 (36%) correctly performed all 18 measurements. A preference for digits 0 and 5 was detected in physicians' measurements (three consecutive values, during a single office visit). This digit preference was not found with the semiautomatic device. When the number of measurements selected for analysis was increased from 1 to 18, in the 604 patients who provided all recordings and fullfilled all protocol criteria, the standard deviation of the mean BP of the cohort was reduced by 17% for SBP and by 23% for DBP. Eighty-five percent of this reduction was already achieved by six home measurements taken at random. BP was significantly lower at home than at the office by 13 +/- 15 mm Hg for systolic BP (SBP), and 8 +/- 10 mm Hg for diastolic BP (DBP). This difference was independent of age, more marked in women (P < .001 for SBP and P < .05 for DBP), and had a Gaussian distribution. Under treatment, office SBP/DBP decreased from 166.4 +/- 14.8/101.4 +/- 5.7 mm Hg to 144.7 +/- 14.2/86.1 +/- 8.3 mm Hg, while SMBP decreased from 153.2 +/- 17.8/93.8 +/- 10.1 mm Hg to 139.4 +/- 16.4/85.1 +/- 9.5 mm Hg (all P < .0001). A major aim in research studies and individual care is to reduce BP measurements variability. This study demonstrates the ability to evaluate baseline SMBP level in two-thirds of patients previously unfamiliar with the method, the ability to evaluate treatment effect in about one-half of the patients, the improvement in the measurement precision obtained with the repetition of measures (at least six home measurements), and the absence of bias of SMBP as compared to office measurements.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“In a recent prospective pilot study in patients with treated hypertension, using a telemedicine healthcare management system, which allowed continuous communication between physician and patient via a smartphone application, improved HBP control was achieved in the patients with poor control at baseline [125]”
Citations
Cites
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
Martin Bland, J., & Altman, D. (1986) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8 · Cited by 47,965
Blood pressure, stroke, and coronary heart disease
Collins, R., Peto, R., MacMahon, S., Godwin, J., Qizilbash, N., Collins, R., MacMahon, S., Hebert, P., Eberlein, K. A., Taylor, J. O., et al. (1990) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/0140-6736(90)90944-z · Cited by 4,491
Ambulatory blood pressure normality: results from the PAMELA study
Mancia, G., Sega, R., Bravi, C., Vito, G. D., Valagussa, F., Cesana, G., & Zanchetti, A. (1995) · Journal of Hypertension · doi:10.1097/00004872-199512000-00003 · Cited by 619
White, W. B., Berson, A., Robbins, C., Jamieson, M. J., Prisant, L. M., Roccella, E. J., & Sheps, S. G. (1993) · Hypertension · doi:10.1161/01.hyp.21.4.504 · Cited by 382
The reproducibility of average ambulatory, home, and clinic pressures.
James, G. D., Pickering, T. G., Yee, L. S., Harshfield, G. A., Riva, S., & LARAGH, J. H. (1988) · Hypertension · doi:10.1161/01.hyp.11.6.545 · Cited by 249
Imai, Y., Satoh, H., Nagai, K., Sakuma, M., Sakuma, H., Minami, N., Munakata, M., Hashimoto, J., Yamagishi, T., Watanabe, N., et al. (1993) · Journal of Hypertension · doi:10.1097/00004872-199312000-00017 · Cited by 172
Observer bias in blood pressure studies
Bruce, N. G., Shaper, A. G., Walker, M., & Wannamethee, G. (1988) · Journal of Hypertension · doi:10.1097/00004872-198805000-00006 · Cited by 144
Home blood pressure: variability, comparison with office readings and proposal for reference values
de Gaudemaris, R., Nguyen, C. P., & Mallion, J. (1994) · Journal of Hypertension · doi:10.1097/00004872-199407000-00016 · Cited by 98
Sphygmomanometers in hospital and family practice: problems and recommendations.
Burke, M. J., Towers, H. M., O'MALLEY, K., Fitzgerald, D. J., & O'Brien, E. T. (1982) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.285.6340.469 · Cited by 91
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Bobrie, G. (2004) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.291.11.1342 · Cited by 842
Parati, G., Stergiou, G. S., Asmar, R., Bilo, G., de Leeuw, P., Imai, Y., Kario, K., Lurbe, E., Manolis, A., Mengden, T., et al. (2008) · Journal of Hypertension · doi:10.1097/hjh.0b013e328308da66 · Cited by 837
Call to Action on Use and Reimbursement for Home Blood Pressure Monitoring
Pickering, T. G., Miller, N. H., Ogedegbe, G. G., Krakoff, L. R., Artinian, N. T., & Goff, D. C. (2008) · Hypertension · doi:10.1161/hypertensionaha.107.189010 · Cited by 666
Staessen, J. A., Wang, J., Bianchi, G., & Birkenhäger, W. H. (2003) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(03)13302-8 · Cited by 493
Staessen, J. A. (2004) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.291.8.955 · Cited by 288
Metadata
- Authors
- Chatellier, G.
- Venue
- American Journal of Hypertension
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1996-07
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 644-652
- ISSN
- 0895-7061 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2050370075
- Cited by
- 116
- References
- 24
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 2.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Journal of Hypertension (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
- home blood pressure monitoring, self-measurement, trandolapril, antihypertensive treatment response, office blood pressure, measurement variability, digit preference, oscillometric blood pressure monitoring, SMART study, hypertension, general practice, feasibility, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors, Blood Pressure Determination, Family Practice, Female, Fingers, Humans, Indoles, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Compliance, Regional Blood Flow
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