Cited by 199Blood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesNon-Invasive Vital Sign MonitoringCardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention

Blood Pressure Assessment in Adults in Clinical Practice and Clinic-Based Research

Open access
Muntner, Paul, Einhorn, Paula T., Cushman, William C., Whelton, Paul K., Bello, Natalie A., Drawz, Paul E., Green, Beverly B., Jones, Daniel W. +14 more·2019·Journal of the American College of Cardiology

Abstract

The accurate measurement of blood pressure (BP) is essential for the diagnosis and management of hypertension. Restricted use of mercury devices, increased use of oscillometric devices, discrepancies between clinic and out-of-clinic BP, and concerns about measurement error with manual BP measurement techniques have resulted in uncertainty for clinicians and researchers. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the U.S. National Institutes of Health convened a working group of clinicians and researchers in October 2017 to review data on BP assessment among adults in clinical practice and clinic-based research. In this report, the authors review the topics discussed during a 2-day meeting including the current state of knowledge on BP assessment in clinical practice and clinic-based research, knowledge gaps pertaining to current BP assessment methods, research and clinical needs to improve BP assessment, and the strengths and limitations of using BP obtained in clinical practice for research and quality improvement activities.

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 · 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.10.069

Cites

137 of 137 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • Out-of-office blood pressure measurements are more reproducible than office measurements.

    “Out-of-office BP measurements (by patients at home or with 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring [ABPM]) are more reproducible than office measurements,”

    From 2020 International Society of Hypertension Global Hypertension Practice Guidelines (2020) · cites this paper as [18]

    The Introduction’s discussion of out-of-clinic measurement says home and ambulatory monitoring typically yield more readings than clinic measurement, and its discussion of diagnostic reproducibility says averaging more readings improves reproducibility for both settings (page unavailable). These points support a possible advantage, but the paper does not establish that out-of-office measurements are generally more reproducible than office measurements. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • About 10% to 15% of subjects attending clinics due to high blood pressure have masked hypertension.

    “and 10%-15% have masked hypertension.”

    From 2020 International Society of Hypertension Global Hypertension Practice Guidelines (2020) · cites this paper as [18]

    The Introduction section on BP assessment reports masked hypertension in 15.7% of untreated people with non-hypertensive clinic readings in a New York community sample. That is close to the claimed range, but it does not establish a 10%–15% prevalence among people attending clinics because of high blood pressure; the section also reports 25.4% in another cohort. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • About 10% to 30% of subjects attending clinics due to high blood pressure have white coat hypertension.

    “About 10%-30% of subjects attending clinics due to high BP have white coat hypertension”

    From 2020 International Society of Hypertension Global Hypertension Practice Guidelines (2020) · cites this paper as [18]

    The Introduction section on ambulatory BP assessment reports white-coat hypertension in 19.1% of untreated community participants with elevated clinic BP and 30.2% of untreated Jackson Heart Study participants. Those figures broadly fit the claimed range, but the paper does not establish that prevalence specifically among people attending clinics because of high BP. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Subjects with white coat hypertension are at intermediate cardiovascular risk between normotensives and sustained hypertensives.

    “White coat hypertension: These subjects are at intermediate cardiovascular risk between normotensives and sustained hypertensives.”

    From 2020 International Society of Hypertension Global Hypertension Practice Guidelines (2020) · cites this paper as [18]

    In the Introduction’s section on white coat and masked hypertension (page not provided), the paper discusses cardiovascular risk in white coat hypertension but says it is unclear whether that risk is substantially higher than in normotension. It does not establish that cardiovascular risk falls below that of sustained hypertension, so the definite intermediate-risk ranking overstates the source. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Out-of-office blood pressure measurements are more closely associated with hypertension-induced organ damage and the risk of cardiovascular events than office measurements.

    “more closely associated with hypertension-induced organ damage and the risk of cardiovascular events”

    From 2020 International Society of Hypertension Global Hypertension Practice Guidelines (2020) · cites this paper as [18]

    The Summary and conclusions states that out-of-clinic blood pressure measurements have stronger associations with cardiovascular event risk than clinic measurements. The passages found do not establish the corresponding comparison for hypertension-induced organ damage (searched: target organ damage; organ damage association). (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Muntner, P., Einhorn, P. T., Cushman, W. C., Whelton, P. K., Bello, N. A., Drawz, P. E., Green, B. B., Jones, D. W., Juraschek, S. P., Margolis, K. L., Miller, E. R., Navar, A. M., Ostchega, Y., Rakotz, M. K., Rosner, B., Schwartz, J. E., Shimbo, D., Stergiou, G. S., Townsend, R. R., Williamson, J. D., Wright, J. T., & Appel, L. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Alabama at Birmingham (US)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • Memphis VA Medical Center (US)
  • Tulane University (US)
  • Columbia University Irving Medical Center (US)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute (US)
  • University of Mississippi Medical Center (US)
  • Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
  • HealthPartners (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US)
  • American Medical Association (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Stony Brook University (US)
  • National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (GR)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Wake Forest University Health Sciences (US)
  • Case Western Reserve University (US)
Corresponding author
Muntner, Paul
Venue
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-01
Volume
73
Issue
3
Pages
317-335
ISSN
0735-1097 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2910952524
Cited by
199
References
137
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 11
FWCI
15.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American College of Cardiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
BP
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Non-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
Keywords
blood pressure measurement, hypertension diagnosis, clinical practice, oscillometric blood pressure devices, mercury sphygmomanometer, measurement error, quality improvement, research needs
MeSH terms
Adult, Blood Pressure Determination, Delivery of Health Care, Humans, Hypertension, Biomedical Research

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