The DOI matches its Crossref record; 102 of the 109 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 51 of the 152 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques
Open accessAbstract
Current hypertension guidelines recommend using the average values of several blood pressure (BP) readings obtained both in and out of the office for the diagnosis and management of hypertension. In-office BP measurement using an upper-arm cuff constitutes the evidence-based reference method for current BP classification and treatment targets. However, out-of-office BP evaluation using 24 h ambulatory or home BP monitoring is recommended by all major medical associations for obtaining further insights into the BP profile of an individual and how it relates to their daily activities. Importantly, the highly variable nature of office and out-of-office BP readings has been widely acknowledged, including the association of BP variability with cardiovascular outcomes. However, to date, the implications of BP variability on cardiovascular outcomes have largely been ignored, with limited application in clinical practice. Novel cuffless wearable technologies might provide a detailed assessment of the 24 h BP profile and behaviour over weeks or months. These devices offer many advantages for researchers and patients compared with traditional BP monitors, but their accuracy and utility remain uncertain. In this Review, we outline and compare conventional and novel methods and techniques for assessing average BP levels and BP variability, and reflect on the utility and potential of these methods for improving the treatment and management of patients with hypertension.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
46 No full text of the sources · 27 Own interpretation · 20 Partly supported · 18 Supported · 7 Supported so far · 5 No basis given · 2 Sources not found · 1 Not supported · 1 Couldn’t confirm · accuracy not yet measured
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Current hypertension guidelines recommend using the average values of several blood pressure (BP) readings obtained both in and out of the office for the diagnosis and management of hypertension.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Abstract
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [5] Unger, T. et al. 2020 International Society of Hypertension Global Hypertension practice guidelines. Hypertension 75, 1334–1357 (2020). source
The Office BP Measurement protocol (p. 5) recommends taking three readings at a visit and averaging the last two. Table 5 (p. 6) specifies repeated home or ambulatory readings and uses average out-of-office BP for diagnosis; the Out-of-Office BP Measurement section (p. 6) also says these measurements inform diagnosis and treatment decisions. The guideline recommends out-of-office confirmation when possible, rather than requiring it in every case. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [6] Stergiou, G. S. et al. 2021 European Society of Hypertension practice guidelines for office and out-of-office blood pressure measurement. J. Hypertens. 39, 1293–1302 (2021). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“a 5 mmHg difference in systolic BP would correspond to an incorrect classification of hypertension status in 84 million individuals worldwide15.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > The clinical relevance of ‘average’ BP levels > The gold standard technique
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [15] Padwal, R. et al. Optimizing observer performance of clinic blood pressure measurement: a position statement from the Lancet Commission on Hypertension Group. J. Hypertens. 37, 1737–1745 (2019). source
The Introduction states that a 5-mmHg systolic BP measurement error could lead to incorrect hypertension classification in 84 million people worldwide. It presents this as an estimate based on an assumed global hypertension prevalence of 1.4 billion. (LLM, conf=0.94)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Accumulating evidence has highlighted the clinical relevance of BPV, beyond the effect of average BP levels on cardiovascular and mortality outcomes8”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Introduction
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [8] Stevens, S. L. et al. Blood pressure variability and cardiovascular disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 354, i4098 (2016). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion conclusion states that long-term blood pressure variability is associated with cardiovascular and mortality outcomes beyond the effect of mean blood pressure. It also notes that evidence for cardiovascular outcomes from mid- and short-term variability needs further investigation, so the strongest support is for long-term variability. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“including the association of BP variability with cardiovascular outcomes”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Abstract
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [8] Stevens, S. L. et al. Blood pressure variability and cardiovascular disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 354, i4098 (2016). source
The Discussion states that long-term blood pressure variability is significantly associated with cardiovascular events, stroke, and myocardial infarction independently of mean blood pressure. It also reports that the more limited evidence for mid- and short-term variability broadly supports an association with cardiovascular outcomes. (LLM, conf=0.95)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“An average of several office and out-of-office BP measurements is used to diagnose and manage hypertension.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Introduction
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [5] Unger, T. et al. 2020 International Society of Hypertension Global Hypertension practice guidelines. Hypertension 75, 1334–1357 (2020). source
The Office BP Measurement protocol (p. 5) recommends taking three readings per visit and averaging the last two; the diagnosis section (p. 4) usually calls for two to three visits. The out-of-office monitoring guidance (p. 6) uses multiple home or ambulatory readings and an average home BP for diagnosis and treatment decisions. The guidelines assess office and out-of-office readings separately, with out-of-office confirmation when feasible, rather than averaging them together. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [6] Stergiou, G. S. et al. 2021 European Society of Hypertension practice guidelines for office and out-of-office blood pressure measurement. J. Hypertens. 39, 1293–1302 (2021). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“On a beat-to-beat basis, BP levels can vary markedly (from –24 mmHg to 33 mmHg) in response to usual extrinsic and behavioural factors4”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Introduction
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [4] Kallioinen, N., Hill, A., Horswill, M. S., Ward, H. E. & Watson, M. O. Sources of inaccuracy in the measurement of adult patients’ resting blood pressure in clinical settings: a systematic review. J. Hypertens. 35, 421–441 (2017). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Table 2 (Methods > Synthesis; page not provided) reports significant mean effects on systolic BP of −23.6 mmHg for acute alcohol use and +33 mmHg for bladder distension, matching the quoted endpoints after rounding. But these are effects measured across different studies and conditions, not beat-to-beat changes; the Results describe measurements taken minutes to hours after alcohol consumption. The source therefore supports the magnitude of effects from patient-related factors, but not the beat-to-beat characterization. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“To date, all major outcome clinical trials that evaluate the efficacy of pharmacotherapy in reducing BP levels have measured office BP levels using the upper-arm-cuff method13.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > The clinical relevance of ‘average’ BP levels > The gold standard technique
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [13] Adler, A. et al. Pharmacological blood pressure lowering for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease across different levels of blood pressure: an individual participant-level data meta-analysis. Lancet 397, 1625–1636 (2021). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract Methods describes 48 randomised trials of blood-pressure-lowering drugs, and Methods > Statistical analysis uses their blood-pressure measurements. Neither passage specifies office measurement or an upper-arm cuff, and searches for those measurement methods found no passage establishing that all major outcome trials used them. (LLM, conf=0.72)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“This finding was confirmed in the SPRINT trial30, which demonstrated that the time spent within target BP levels was significantly associated with a decreased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, independent of average systolic BP levels.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > The clinical relevance of ‘average’ BP levels > BP snapshots versus BP profile
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [30] Fatani, N., Dixon, D. L., Van Tassell, B. W., Fanikos, J. & Buckley, L. F. Systolic blood pressure time in target range and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with hypertension. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 77, 1290–1299 (2021). source
The Results report a significant association between greater time in target range and lower risk of a first major adverse cardiovascular event, including after adjustment for mean systolic blood pressure. The Methods identify this as a post-hoc analysis of SPRINT, rather than a finding from the original randomized comparison. (LLM, conf=0.94)
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Individuals who remained at target BP levels for a higher proportion of time seemed to have a lower risk of incident cardiovascular diseases, which was independent of the widely used office BP ‘control’ indicators29.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > The clinical relevance of ‘average’ BP levels > BP snapshots versus BP profile
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [29] Chung, S. C. et al. Time spent at blood pressure target and the risk of death and cardiovascular diseases. PLoS ONE 13, e0202359 (2018). source
The Abstract’s Conclusion reports an inverse association between time at BP target and incident cardiovascular disease, independent of widely used BP-control indicators. The Discussion also says the association was independent of snapshot BP-control status and other management indicators. (LLM, conf=0.94)
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The SAFAR study38,39 showed that in individuals with hypertension, 24 h central systolic BPV had a significant and a slightly stronger association with carotid damage and left ventricular structural and functional abnormalities than brachial BPV.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Classic and novel BP monitoring methods > Central BP levels and variability
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [38] Yu, S. et al. 24-h aortic blood pressure variability showed a stronger association with carotid damage than 24-h brachial blood pressure variability: The SAFAR study. J. Clin. Hypertens. 20, 499–507 (2018). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Results §§3.2–3.3 report significant associations between 24-hour aortic systolic BP variability and carotid damage, with similar results in the hypertensive subgroup. The Discussion describes the aortic association as slightly stronger than the brachial association, but §3.2 says the difference was not statistically significant. This paper does not report an association with left ventricular structural or functional abnormalities. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [39] Chi, C. et al. Association of left ventricular structural and functional abnormalities with aortic and brachial blood pressure variability in hypertensive patients: the SAFAR study. J. Hum. Hypertens. 31, 633–639 (2017). source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Cuffless BP technologies embedded in wearable devices and smartphones can obtain multiple or even continuous measurements during routine activities for days, weeks or months, without the discomfort of cuff-induced limb compression.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Classic and novel BP monitoring methods > Cuffless wearable BP devices and BPV
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [6] Stergiou, G. S. et al. 2021 European Society of Hypertension practice guidelines for office and out-of-office blood pressure measurement. J. Hypertens. 39, 1293–1302 (2021). source
- Partly supportedcites [55] Mukkamala, R. et al. Evaluation of the accuracy of cuffless blood pressure measurement devices: challenges and proposals. Hypertension 78, 1161–1167 (2021). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
“The Potential of Cuffless Blood Pressure Measurement Devices” (page unavailable) describes numerous measurements from wearables and smartphones across daily circumstances and long periods. It does not establish continuous measurement for months or discuss discomfort from limb compression; “Types of Cuffless BP Measurement Devices” (page unavailable) also notes that some devices require periodic arm-cuff calibration. (LLM, conf=0.83)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [56] Mukkamala R., Stergiou G. S. & Avolio A. P. Cuffless blood pressure measurement. Annu. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 24, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-bioeng-110220-014644 (2022). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Despite the inaccuracies in the diagnosis of hypertension owing to the presence of BPV, accumulating evidence from clinical trials, large registries and meta-analyses of population studies shows that increased BPV is predictive of cardiovascular outcomes, independently of the average BP values8,25,66–81.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Clinical relevance of BPV > Clinical implications of BPV
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [8] Stevens, S. L. et al. Blood pressure variability and cardiovascular disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 354, i4098 (2016). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract and Discussion conclusion report that long-term blood-pressure variability predicts cardiovascular outcomes independently of mean blood pressure. The claim does not distinguish long-term variability from mid- or short-term variability; the Discussion conclusion says their association with cardiovascular outcomes requires further investigation. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [25] Rothwell, P. M. et al. Prognostic significance of visit-to-visit variability, maximum systolic blood pressure, and episodic hypertension. Lancet 375, 895–905 (2010). source
- Supportedcites [66] Hansen, T. W. et al. Prognostic value of reading-to-reading blood pressure variability over 24 h in 8938 subjects from 11 populations. Hypertension 55, 1049–1057 (2010). source
The Discussion (p. 6) describes an individual-data meta-analysis of 11 populations and reports that BP variability independently predicted mortality and cardiovascular and stroke events after adjustment for 24-hour BP level and other factors. It also cautions that variability explained little additional risk; this source supports the meta-analysis part of the jointly cited statement. (LLM, conf=0.91)
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Importantly, the established validation standards used to evaluate the accuracy of cuff BP devices are inappropriate for cuffless devices58,59.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Classic and novel BP monitoring methods > Cuffless wearable BP devices and BPV
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [58] Stergiou, G. S., Alpert, B. S., Mieke, S., Wang, J. & O’Brien, E. Validation protocols for blood pressure measuring devices in the 21st century. J. Clin. Hypertens. 20, 1096–1099 (2018). source
- Supportedcites [59] Stergiou, G. S. et al. A universal standard for the validation of blood pressure measuring devices: Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation/European Society of Hypertension/International Organization for Standardization (AAMI/ESH/ISO) collaboration statement. Hypertension 71, 368–374 (2018). source
The “Validation of Other BP Monitors” section says separate validation protocols need to be developed for cuffless monitors, and the Consensus section repeats that they will be developed. This supports the claim that the established protocol for cuff-based devices is not suitable for validating cuffless devices as-is. (LLM, conf=0.91)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Of note, these studies predominantly included adults at increased risk of cardiovascular disease in Europe and East Asia.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Clinical relevance of BPV > Clinical implications of BPV
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [8] Stevens, S. L. et al. Blood pressure variability and cardiovascular disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 354, i4098 (2016). source
The Discussion, under ‘Limitations of this review,’ says the included studies were primarily in adults at increased cardiovascular risk and were conducted in European or East Asian populations. This directly supports the citing sentence. (LLM, conf=0.95)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Regarding short-term BPV, an analysis of 24 h systolic and diastolic ambulatory BPV (ARV) data from the IDACO database66 showed significant predictive value for total and cardiovascular mortality.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Clinical relevance of BPV > Clinical implications of BPV
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [66] Hansen, T. W. et al. Prognostic value of reading-to-reading blood pressure variability over 24 h in 8938 subjects from 11 populations. Hypertension 55, 1049–1057 (2010). source
The Study Population section (p. 3) identifies the analyzed cohort as drawn from the IDACO database. The paper reports that higher systolic and diastolic average real variability in 24-hour ambulatory BP recordings significantly predicted both total and cardiovascular mortality (p. 2). It also notes that the added value for risk stratification was modest; the citing sentence does not claim otherwise. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The reproducibility of specific diurnal BP patterns identified by 24 h ABPM, including nocturnal BP dipping and the morning BP surge, is also less than optimal46–49.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Clinical relevance of BPV > Clinical implications of BPV
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [46] Cuspidi, C. et al. Reproducibility of nocturnal blood pressure fall in early phases of untreated essential hypertension: a prospective observational study. J. Hum. Hypertens. 18, 503–509 (2004). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [47] Manning, G., Rushton, L., Donnelly, R. & Millar-Craig, M. W. Variability of diurnal changes in ambulatory blood pressure and nocturnal dipping status in untreated hypertensive and normotensive subjects. Am. J. Hypertens. 13, 1035–1038 (2000). source
- Partly supportedcites [48] Burgos-Alonso, N., Ruiz Arzalluz, M. V., Garcia-Alvarez, A., Fernandez-Fernandez de Quincoces, D. & Grandes, G. Reproducibility study of nocturnal blood pressure dipping in patients with high cardiovascular risk. J. Clin. Hypertens. 23, 1041–1050 (2021). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Conclusions and Discussion report modest reproducibility of nocturnal BP dipping patterns across repeated ABPM recordings in patients with treated hypertension and high cardiovascular risk. The paper does not assess the reproducibility of the morning BP surge; the only matching mention is in a reference title. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The limited data for mid-term and short-term BPV also showed similar associations8.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Clinical relevance of BPV > Clinical implications of BPV
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [8] Stevens, S. L. et al. Blood pressure variability and cardiovascular disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 354, i4098 (2016). source
The Discussion’s ‘Limitations of this review’ section says that, despite limited data, shorter-term variability was associated with cardiovascular outcomes and pooled hazard ratios were similar to those for long-term variability. The paper cautions that cardiovascular outcome associations for mid-term and short-term variability need further investigation. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“This finding was confirmed in a randomized trial showing that in old adults without major cognitive impairment, higher long-term, visit-to-visit BPV was associated with an increased risk of dementia and cognitive decline, independently of average BP levels and use of antihypertensive medication86.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Clinical relevance of BPV > Clinical implications of BPV
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [86] Ernst, M. E. et al. Long-term blood pressure variability and risk of cognitive decline and dementia among older adults. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 10, e019613 (2021). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Conclusions (page not provided) report an independent association between high blood-pressure variability and dementia and cognitive decline in older adults without major cognitive impairment, particularly men. The Results say the models adjusted for average systolic blood pressure and baseline antihypertensive use, but also report that antihypertensive use modified the association in men: those not taking the drugs did not have increased risk. Thus, the unqualified claim of an association independent of medication use overstates the finding. The analysis was post hoc within an aspirin trial, not a randomized test of blood-pressure variability. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“For example, in the aforementioned IDACO database66, multivariate analyses showed that ARV added only 0.1% to the risk of a composite cardiovascular event.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Clinical relevance of BPV > Barriers in implementation
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [66] Hansen, T. W. et al. Prognostic value of reading-to-reading blood pressure variability over 24 h in 8938 subjects from 11 populations. Hypertension 55, 1049–1057 (2010). source
The Fatal and Nonfatal Cardiovascular Events section (p. 5) states that, with 24-hour blood pressure included in the adjusted model, ARV24 added only 0.1% to the explained risk of a composite cardiovascular event. This directly supports the cited claim; the 0.1% refers to explained risk, not an increase in an individual's absolute risk. (LLM, conf=0.95)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“A 2021 meta-analysis of 20 studies that involved 7.8 million participants showed that BPV had a stronger association with dementia and cognitive impairment than mean BP levels85.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Clinical relevance of BPV > Clinical implications of BPV
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [85] de Heus, R. A. A. et al. Association between blood pressure variability with dementia and cognitive impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hypertension 78, 1478–1489 (2021). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (BPV and Dementia or Cognitive Impairment; page unavailable) report 20 studies and a stronger pooled association for BP variability than for mean blood pressure. The Results (Study Selection and Characteristics; page unavailable) give the primary-analysis sample as 7,899,679 participants—about 7.9 million, not 7.8 million. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Furthermore, even in patients without hypertension, BPV has been associated with glaucomatous optic neuropathy, most probably via hypoperfusion of the optic nerve84.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Clinical relevance of BPV > Clinical implications of BPV
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [84] Melgarejo, J. D. et al. Normal-tension glaucomatous optic neuropathy is related to blood pressure variability in the Maracaibo Aging Study. Hypertens. Res. 44, 1105–1112 (2021). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract and Discussion report an association between blood-pressure variability and normal-tension glaucomatous optic neuropathy, with optic-nerve hypoperfusion proposed as the likely mechanism. But “normal-tension” refers to intraocular pressure, not the absence of hypertension. The Results report that office hypertension was common and do not establish the association specifically in participants without hypertension. (LLM, conf=0.90)
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Other studies have also confirmed a beneficial effect of calcium-channel blockers and diuretics in reducing BPV compared with other antihypertensive agents77,91–94.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Clinical relevance of BPV > Antihypertensive drugs and BPV
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [77] Chang, T. I. et al. Visit-to-visit office blood pressure variability and cardiovascular outcomes in SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial). Hypertension 70, 751–758 (2017). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (Correlates of OBPV) associate thiazide-type diuretics and dihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers with lower visit-to-visit office BP variability. The Discussion also reports lower variability in comparator treatment groups from other trials, but says it is only possible that these drugs lower variability; the SPRINT associations do not establish the causal effect implied by “reduce.” (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [91] Zhang, Y., Agnoletti, D., Safar, M. E. & Blacher, J. Effect of antihypertensive agents on blood pressure variability: the Natrilix SR versus candesartan and amlodipine in the reduction of systolic blood pressure in hypertensive patients (X-CELLENT) study. Hypertension 58, 155–160 (2011). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [92] Webb, A. J., Fischer, U., Mehta, Z. & Rothwell, P. M. Effects of antihypertensive-drug class on interindividual variation in blood pressure and risk of stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 375, 906–915 (2010). source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Furthermore, critically ill patients with COVID-19 who required transfer to other hospitals for further treatment, were admitted to the intensive care unit or died had greater systolic and diastolic BPV than patients with severe COVID-19 who recovered and were discharged from hospital (despite similar use of antihypertensive medication and similar mean BP levels)83.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Clinical relevance of BPV > Clinical implications of BPV
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [83] Li, F. K. et al. Day-by-day blood pressure variability in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. J. Clin. Hypertens. 23, 1675–1680 (2021). source
Split into 2 atoms — 2 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Devices that take triplicate automated measurements and display the average of the last two or all three readings (as current guidelines recommend5,12) will eliminate the need for an observer — the most fallible aspect of this type of measurement.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Conclusions
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [5] Unger, T. et al. 2020 International Society of Hypertension Global Hypertension practice guidelines. Hypertension 75, 1334–1357 (2020). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Office BP Measurement protocol (p. 5) recommends three measurements at a visit and averaging the last two, with an exception when the first reading is below 130/85 mm Hg. It does not recommend averaging all three or specify that the device display the average. The statement about eliminating the observer is the citing authors’ own conclusion, not part of the guideline recommendation cited here. (LLM, conf=0.87)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [12] Williams, B. et al. 2018 ESC/ESH Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension: The Task Force for the Management of Arterial Hypertension of the European Society of Cardiology and the European Society of Hypertension. J. Hypertens. 36, 1953–2041 (2018). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The degree of BP variability (BPV) also differs between individuals in the short term and long term.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Introduction
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“From the first landmark 1967 Veterans Administration Cooperative Study2 to the 2021 SPRINT trial3, all outcome trials in hypertension have used the average of snapshot BP levels to demonstrate the efficacy of antihypertensive drug therapy in reducing cardiovascular events.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [2] No Authors Listed. Effects of treatment on morbidity in hypertension. Results in patients with diastolic blood pressures averaging 115 through 129 mm Hg. JAMA 202, 1028–1034 (1967). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [3] Lewis, C. E. et al. Final report of a trial of intensive versus standard blood-pressure control. N. Engl. J. Med. 384, 1921–1930 (2021). source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“but the practical implications of BPV remain uncertain”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, BP levels are different from all other components of absolute cardiovascular risk calculation such as age, sex, smoking status and cholesterol levels, which are all constant or stable.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In clinical practice, BP values with a large deviation from the average are usually regarded as being outliers or noise7.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [7] Stergiou, G. S. & Parati, G. How to best assess blood pressure? The ongoing debate on the clinical value of blood pressure average and variability. Hypertension 57, 1041–1042 (2011). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both ABPM and HBPM enable multiple BP measurements to be obtained within the usual environment of each individual, thereby providing a more comprehensive and representative assessment of the BP profile than that obtained with snapshot office measurements.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Classic and novel BP monitoring methods > Complementary roles of ABPM and HBPM
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Approximately 15–25% of treated or untreated individuals with hypertension who attend BP clinics have white-coat hypertension”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > The clinical relevance of ‘average’ BP levels > Classification, diagnostic and treatment thresholds
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [6] Stergiou, G. S. et al. 2021 European Society of Hypertension practice guidelines for office and out-of-office blood pressure measurement. J. Hypertens. 39, 1293–1302 (2021). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“However, the predictive capacity of central systolic BP levels is only marginally but not significantly superior to that of peripheral BP levels35,36.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Classic and novel BP monitoring methods > Central BP levels and variability
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [35] Kollias, A., Lagou, S., Zeniodi, M. E., Boubouchairopoulou, N. & Stergiou, G. S. Association of central versus brachial blood pressure with target-organ damage: systematic review and meta-analysis. Hypertension 67, 183–190 (2016). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [36] Vlachopoulos, C. et al. Prediction of cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality with central haemodynamics: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. Heart J. 31, 1865–1871 (2010). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“office BP levels are now well-known to be subject to the ‘white-coat effect’.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > The clinical relevance of ‘average’ BP levels > Classification, diagnostic and treatment thresholds
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [6] Stergiou, G. S. et al. 2021 European Society of Hypertension practice guidelines for office and out-of-office blood pressure measurement. J. Hypertens. 39, 1293–1302 (2021). source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“These disrupted diurnal profiles seem to provide independent prognostic information beyond that of average BP levels.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > The clinical relevance of ‘average’ BP levels > BP snapshots versus BP profile
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [22] Mancia, G. & Verdecchia, P. Clinical value of ambulatory blood pressure: evidence and limits. Circ. Res. 116, 1034–1045 (2015). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [23] Parati, G. et al. European Society of Hypertension practice guidelines for ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. J. Hypertens. 32, 1359–1366 (2014). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [24] Kario, K. et al. Morning surge in blood pressure as a predictor of silent and clinical cerebrovascular disease in elderly hypertensives: a prospective study. Circulation 107, 1401–1406 (2003). source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This finding is not surprising given the imperfect reproducibility of the two methods and the fact that they assess different aspects of the BP profile and behaviour (for example, a rise in BP level might specifically occur at work, at home or during sleep).”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Classic and novel BP monitoring methods > Complementary roles of ABPM and HBPM
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As with HBPM measurements, ABPM readings are not influenced by the white-coat effect or masked hypertension.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Classic and novel BP monitoring methods > Ambulatory BP monitoring and BPV
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
In the paper
“the most recent clinical practice guidelines for office and out-of-office BP measurement provide thresholds only for hypertension that is diagnosed with the use of an average calculation of the second and third office BP readings, an average of 24 h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) readings or an average of HBPM readings taken for multiple days (at least 3 days with at least 12 readings)6.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > The clinical relevance of ‘average’ BP levels > BP snapshots versus BP profile
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [6] Stergiou, G. S. et al. 2021 European Society of Hypertension practice guidelines for office and out-of-office blood pressure measurement. J. Hypertens. 39, 1293–1302 (2021). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The devices used for office BP measurements have mostly not been validated for accuracy (STRIDE BP).”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > The clinical relevance of ‘average’ BP levels > Classification, diagnostic and treatment thresholds
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites STRIDE BP
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of note, all the evidence on the risks of elevated BP levels and the benefits of therapeutic reduction of BP levels in preventing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality is derived from studies using upper-arm-cuff BP measurements, especially in the office setting.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Classic and novel BP monitoring methods > Intra-arterial versus non-invasive cuff-based methods
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Importantly, ABPM seems to be the ideal method for evaluating true BPV because it records BP levels during all daily activities, including work and sleep.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Classic and novel BP monitoring methods > Ambulatory BP monitoring and BPV
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“However, both methods obtain BP measurements under restrictive conditions (specifically the setting, body position and protocol used), which buffer and thereby underestimate true BPV41,42.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Classic and novel BP monitoring methods > Home BP monitoring and BPV
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [41] Parati, G., Ochoa, J. E., Lombardi, C. & Bilo, G. Assessment and management of blood-pressure variability. Nat. Rev. Cardiol. 10, 143–155 (2013). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [42] Parati, G., Torlasco, C., Pengo, M., Bilo, G. & Ochoa, J. E. Blood pressure variability: its relevance for cardiovascular homeostasis and cardiovascular diseases. Hypertens. Res. 43, 609–620 (2020). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Across a 24 h period, different diurnal BP profiles, including a nocturnal non-dipping BP pattern22, extreme nocturnal dipping in selected individuals23, an exaggerated morning BP surge24 or maximal systolic BP levels25, can predict an increased risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > The clinical relevance of ‘average’ BP levels > BP snapshots versus BP profile
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [22] Mancia, G. & Verdecchia, P. Clinical value of ambulatory blood pressure: evidence and limits. Circ. Res. 116, 1034–1045 (2015). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [23] Parati, G. et al. European Society of Hypertension practice guidelines for ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. J. Hypertens. 32, 1359–1366 (2014). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [24] Kario, K. et al. Morning surge in blood pressure as a predictor of silent and clinical cerebrovascular disease in elderly hypertensives: a prospective study. Circulation 107, 1401–1406 (2003). source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Monitoring ambulatory BP levels for 48 h and with more frequent readings (every 15 min) might improve the clinical relevance of estimated BPV52,53.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Classic and novel BP monitoring methods > Ambulatory BP monitoring and BPV
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [52] di Rienzo, M., Grassi, G., Pedotti, A. & Mancia, G. Continuous vs intermittent blood pressure measurements in estimating 24-h average blood pressure. Hypertension 5, 264–269 (1983). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [53] Mena, L. J. et al. How many measurements are needed to estimate blood pressure variability without loss of prognostic information? Am. J. Hypertens. 27, 46–55 (2014). source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, ABPM and HBPM should be regarded as complementary rather than interchangeable methods and, ideally, both should be performed for a more complete evaluation of average BP level and BPV.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Classic and novel BP monitoring methods > Complementary roles of ABPM and HBPM
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Likewise, in the Ambulatory Blood Pressure International Study67, a nocturnal systolic BP standard deviation of ≥12.2 mmHg was associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular and all-cause death.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Clinical relevance of BPV > Clinical implications of BPV
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [67] Palatini, P. et al. Added predictive value of night-time blood pressure variability for cardiovascular events and mortality: the Ambulatory Blood Pressure-International Study. Hypertension 64, 487–493 (2014). source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In the ELSA study64, only one-third of 1,664 patients treated for hypertension classified as white-coat or masked hypertension maintained the same classification in repeated annual assessments in the 4-year follow-up.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Clinical relevance of BPV > Clinical implications of BPV
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [64] Mancia, G. et al. Limited reproducibility of MUCH and WUCH: evidence from the ELSA study. Eur. Heart J. 41, 1565–1571 (2020). source
plainn = 1,664- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“The continuous dynamic fluctuations in BP levels are dependent on endogenous rhythms and, to a greater extent, on the physical and mental exertion associated with routine daily activities.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Clinical relevance of BPV > Types and indices of BPV
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [41] Parati, G., Ochoa, J. E., Lombardi, C. & Bilo, G. Assessment and management of blood-pressure variability. Nat. Rev. Cardiol. 10, 143–155 (2013). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [42] Parati, G., Torlasco, C., Pengo, M., Bilo, G. & Ochoa, J. E. Blood pressure variability: its relevance for cardiovascular homeostasis and cardiovascular diseases. Hypertens. Res. 43, 609–620 (2020). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“However, the standard deviation of BP levels is highly dependent on the average BP value41,42.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Clinical relevance of BPV > Types and indices of BPV
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [41] Parati, G., Ochoa, J. E., Lombardi, C. & Bilo, G. Assessment and management of blood-pressure variability. Nat. Rev. Cardiol. 10, 143–155 (2013). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [42] Parati, G., Torlasco, C., Pengo, M., Bilo, G. & Ochoa, J. E. Blood pressure variability: its relevance for cardiovascular homeostasis and cardiovascular diseases. Hypertens. Res. 43, 609–620 (2020). source
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Regarding mid-term BPV, data from the IDHOCO database68 showed that all indices of systolic and diastolic BPV (standard deviation, coefficient of variation, ARV and VIM) derived from day-to-day morning HBPM were independently associated with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Clinical relevance of BPV > Clinical implications of BPV
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [68] Juhanoja, E. P. et al. Outcome-driven thresholds for increased home blood pressure variability. Hypertension 69, 599–607 (2017). source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Until appropriate standards for validating cuffless BP devices have been established, and the accuracy and clinical usefulness of cuffless BP devices have been adequately investigated, they should not be recommended for medical decision-making, diagnosis or treatment6.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Classic and novel BP monitoring methods > Cuffless wearable BP devices and BPV
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [6] Stergiou, G. S. et al. 2021 European Society of Hypertension practice guidelines for office and out-of-office blood pressure measurement. J. Hypertens. 39, 1293–1302 (2021). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“At present, the ISO is developing a new standard specific for validating continuous cuffless BP devices (ISO 81060-3)60.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Classic and novel BP monitoring methods > Cuffless wearable BP devices and BPV
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [60] International Organization for Standardization. Non-invasive sphygmomanometers - Part 3: Clinical investigation of continuous automated measurement type. ISO/DIS 81060-3.2. Under development. https://www.iso.org/standard/71161.html (2021)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“The disagreement between office and out-of-office BP monitoring methods has resulted in the identification of the ‘intermediate hypertension’ phenotypes of white-coat hypertension and masked hypertension6,20.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Clinical relevance of BPV > Clinical implications of BPV
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [6] Stergiou, G. S. et al. 2021 European Society of Hypertension practice guidelines for office and out-of-office blood pressure measurement. J. Hypertens. 39, 1293–1302 (2021). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [20] Stergiou, G. S. et al. Phenotypes of masked hypertension: isolated ambulatory, isolated home and dual masked hypertension. J. Hypertens. 38, 218–223 (2020). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Regardless of what an increase in BPV implies, the dynamic nature of BP has inevitably led to challenges in the accurate evaluation of BP levels and hypertension diagnosis and classification (Fig. 5).”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Clinical relevance of BPV > Types and indices of BPV
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“For example, ARV is more dependent on the number of ambulatory BP readings than the standard deviation41,42,53.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Clinical relevance of BPV > Types and indices of BPV
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [41] Parati, G., Ochoa, J. E., Lombardi, C. & Bilo, G. Assessment and management of blood-pressure variability. Nat. Rev. Cardiol. 10, 143–155 (2013). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [42] Parati, G., Torlasco, C., Pengo, M., Bilo, G. & Ochoa, J. E. Blood pressure variability: its relevance for cardiovascular homeostasis and cardiovascular diseases. Hypertens. Res. 43, 609–620 (2020). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [53] Mena, L. J. et al. How many measurements are needed to estimate blood pressure variability without loss of prognostic information? Am. J. Hypertens. 27, 46–55 (2014). source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, although cuffless wearable devices seem to be ideal for evaluating both short-term and long-term BPV, to date, the data on their clinical value and utility are limited.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Classic and novel BP monitoring methods > Cuffless wearable BP devices and BPV
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indeed, continuous cuffless BP monitoring can arguably provide a more complete BP profile than current methods and might pave the way for improved and effective implementation of BPV data into clinical practice.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Conclusions
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In addition, drug-class effects on inter-individual BPV seemed to account for differences in the effects of antihypertensive drugs on the risk of stroke, independently of their effects on average systolic BP level92.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Clinical relevance of BPV > Antihypertensive drugs and BPV
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [92] Webb, A. J., Fischer, U., Mehta, Z. & Rothwell, P. M. Effects of antihypertensive-drug class on interindividual variation in blood pressure and risk of stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 375, 906–915 (2010). source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Third, BPV threshold values for decision-making have not yet been established.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Clinical relevance of BPV > Barriers in implementation
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, the optimal method for assessing BPV is not known.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Clinical relevance of BPV > Barriers in implementation
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, all these findings were indirectly derived from post hoc analyses; randomized cardiovascular outcome trials to specifically address the effect of various antihypertensive drug classes on BPV have not yet been performed.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Clinical relevance of BPV > Antihypertensive drugs and BPV
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“The cardiovascular benefits of drug-mediated BP lowering are well established12,89.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Clinical relevance of BPV > Antihypertensive drugs and BPV
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [12] Williams, B. et al. 2018 ESC/ESH Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension: The Task Force for the Management of Arterial Hypertension of the European Society of Cardiology and the European Society of Hypertension. J. Hypertens. 36, 1953–2041 (2018). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [89] Thomopoulos, C., Parati, G. & Zanchetti, A. Effects of blood pressure lowering on outcome incidence in hypertension. 1. Overview, meta-analyses, and meta-regression analyses of randomized trials. J. Hypertens. 32, 2285–2295 (2014). source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Together, these findings support the notion that reducing BPV might be a future target to prevent dementia.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Clinical relevance of BPV > Clinical implications of BPV
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In patients with acute intracerebral haemorrhage, high systolic BPV was predictive of poor outcome82.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Clinical relevance of BPV > Clinical implications of BPV
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [82] Manning, L. et al. Blood pressure variability and outcome after acute intracerebral haemorrhage: a post-hoc analysis of INTERACT2, a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Neurol. 13, 364–373 (2014). source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Likewise, the IDHOCO analysis68 revealed only a minor and nonsignificant incremental improvement with use of home BPV monitoring in terms of net reclassification and integrated discrimination improvements.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Clinical relevance of BPV > Barriers in implementation
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [68] Juhanoja, E. P. et al. Outcome-driven thresholds for increased home blood pressure variability. Hypertension 69, 599–607 (2017). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, at present, no firm evidence has been found for the benefits of treatment-induced changes in BPV.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Clinical relevance of BPV > Barriers in implementation
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although ambulatory BP monitoring is currently proposed as the best method for diagnosing hypertension, given the cost issues and patient discomfort (particularly with repeated use), this method is unlikely to have a considerable role in screening or long-term follow-up of treated patients in the future.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Conclusions
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The ASCOT trial90, which compared the calcium-channel blocker amlodipine with the β-blocker atenolol in 19,257 patients with hypertension and other cardiovascular risk factors, demonstrated that amlodipine reduced BPV compared with atenolol, which might explain the disparity between the observed effects on stroke risk and the effects expected by the mean BP change.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Clinical relevance of BPV > Antihypertensive drugs and BPV
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [90] Rothwell, P. M. et al. Effects of beta blockers and calcium-channel blockers on within-individual variability in blood pressure and risk of stroke. Lancet Neurol. 9, 469–480 (2010). source
boosteddirectn = 19,257- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The ASCOT trial90, which compared the calcium-channel blocker amlodipine with the β-blocker atenolol in 19,257 patients with hypertension and other cardiovascular risk factors, demonstrated that amlodipine reduced BPV compared with atenolol, which might explain the disparity between the observed effects on stroke risk and the effects expected by the mean BP change.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Clinical relevance of BPV > Antihypertensive drugs and BPV
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [90] Rothwell, P. M. et al. Effects of beta blockers and calcium-channel blockers on within-individual variability in blood pressure and risk of stroke. Lancet Neurol. 9, 469–480 (2010). source
hedgedconditionaln = 19,257- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Several indices have also been established for the quantification of BPV (some of them complex to calculate), but the clinical utility of these parameters has not been validated.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Clinical relevance of BPV > Barriers in implementation
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In a meta-analysis of data from several randomized clinical trials, inter-individual variation in systolic BP level (used as a surrogate index for within-individual BPV) was reduced by the greatest extent with calcium-channel blockers92.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Clinical relevance of BPV > Antihypertensive drugs and BPV
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [92] Webb, A. J., Fischer, U., Mehta, Z. & Rothwell, P. M. Effects of antihypertensive-drug class on interindividual variation in blood pressure and risk of stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 375, 906–915 (2010). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“A separate analysis showed a trend towards larger reductions in odds ratios for numerous end points (including stroke) across several randomized clinical trials, with a larger decrease in the coefficient of intra-individual systolic BPV achieved with amlodipine compared with other drugs94.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Clinical relevance of BPV > Antihypertensive drugs and BPV
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [94] Kollias, A., Stergiou, G. S., Kyriakoulis, K. G., Bilo, G. & Parati, G. Treating visit-to-visit blood pressure variability to improve prognosis: is amlodipine the drug of choice? Hypertension 70, 862–866 (2017). source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 44
- Probably not a substantial claim. 15
At least one cited source doesn’t support this claim or points to a different paper, and none confirmed it — see the verdicts below.
In the paper
“Of note, although all types of BPV have a certain degree of clinical relevance and prognostic value, the association between the indices of different types of BPV, as well as their agreement in detecting individuals with high BPV, is moderate87,88.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Clinical relevance of BPV > Clinical implications of BPV
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [87] Juhanoja, E. P., Niiranen, T. J., Johansson, J. K., Puukka, P. J. & Jula, A. M. Agreement between ambulatory, home, and office blood pressure variability. J. Hypertens. 34, 61–67 (2016). source
- Disputedcites [88] Boubouchairopoulou, N., Ntineri, A., Kollias, A., Destounis, A. & Stergiou, G. S. Blood pressure variability assessed by office, home, and ambulatory measurements: comparison, agreement, and determinants. Hypertens. Res. 44, 1617–1624 (2021). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results report overall weak correlations between BPV indices measured by different methods and limited agreement (29–43%) in identifying people with high BPV. The Discussion likewise calls the correlations weak and the agreement limited, rather than moderate. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“out-of-office BP evaluation using 24 h ambulatory or home BP monitoring is recommended by all major medical associations for obtaining further insights into the BP profile of an individual and how it relates to their daily activities.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [6] Stergiou, G. S. et al. 2021 European Society of Hypertension practice guidelines for office and out-of-office blood pressure measurement. J. Hypertens. 39, 1293–1302 (2021). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [12] Williams, B. et al. 2018 ESC/ESH Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension: The Task Force for the Management of Arterial Hypertension of the European Society of Cardiology and the European Society of Hypertension. J. Hypertens. 36, 1953–2041 (2018). source
- Partly supportedcites [44] Parati, G. et al. Home blood pressure monitoring: methodology, clinical relevance and practical application: a 2021 position paper by the Working Group on Blood Pressure Monitoring and Cardiovascular Variability of the European Society of Hypertension. J. Hypertens. 39, 1742–1767 (2021). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The HOME vs. ABPM section (page unavailable) says current guidelines recommend home monitoring for evaluating suspected hypertension and describes ambulatory monitoring as capturing BP patterns across routine activities and sleep. It does not establish that all major medical associations make this recommendation, and its description of BP in relation to daily activities applies to ambulatory monitoring, not routine home monitoring. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“a standardized office BP measurement procedure is recommended by numerous guidelines5,6, which systematically addresses factors that contribute to BP fluctuations.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Introduction
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [5] Unger, T. et al. 2020 International Society of Hypertension Global Hypertension practice guidelines. Hypertension 75, 1334–1357 (2020). source
The Office BP Measurement section (p. 4) recommends following Table 3. Table 3 (p. 5) specifies a standardized procedure addressing conditions that can affect readings, including room temperature, recent smoking or caffeine, posture, cuff size, and repeated measurements. This paper is one of the guidelines cited, not evidence by itself for the number of guidelines. (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [6] Stergiou, G. S. et al. 2021 European Society of Hypertension practice guidelines for office and out-of-office blood pressure measurement. J. Hypertens. 39, 1293–1302 (2021). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The pharmacological treatment of hypertension has been hailed as arguably the most evidence-based and cost-effective medical intervention, with clear benefits of reduced morbidity and mortality14.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > The clinical relevance of ‘average’ BP levels > The gold standard technique
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [14] Turnbull, F. Effects of different blood-pressure-lowering regimens on major cardiovascular events: results of prospectively-designed overviews of randomised trials. Lancet 362, 1527–1535 (2003). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Summary (p. 1) reports reduced major cardiovascular events, and the Total mortality section (p. 5) reports reduced deaths with ACE-inhibitor treatment versus placebo. The paper does not establish that hypertension treatment is the most evidence-based or cost-effective medical intervention; it also finds no clear mortality reduction for several other regimen comparisons. (LLM, conf=0.90)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“the highly variable nature of office and out-of-office BP readings has been widely acknowledged”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Abstract
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [4] Kallioinen, N., Hill, A., Horswill, M. S., Ward, H. E. & Watson, M. O. Sources of inaccuracy in the measurement of adult patients’ resting blood pressure in clinical settings: a systematic review. J. Hypertens. 35, 421–441 (2017). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (Conclusion and limitations) says clinical BP measurements can vary substantially and that a single reading may be substantially inaccurate. But the Methods explicitly limit the review to clinical settings and say it does not directly address home or 24-hour ambulatory monitoring. The claim is therefore supported for office readings, not specifically for out-of-office readings. (LLM, conf=0.90)
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“In-office BP measurement using an upper-arm cuff constitutes the evidence-based reference method for current BP classification and treatment targets.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Abstract
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [5] Unger, T. et al. 2020 International Society of Hypertension Global Hypertension practice guidelines. Hypertension 75, 1334–1357 (2020). source
Section 2 (p. 4) bases BP classification on office measurements, and the guideline labels its treatment goals as office BP targets (p. 10). The office-measurement recommendations specify a validated upper-arm cuff (p. 5). Office BP is the usual basis, not the only measure: the guideline also recommends out-of-office confirmation when possible (p. 4). (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [6] Stergiou, G. S. et al. 2021 European Society of Hypertension practice guidelines for office and out-of-office blood pressure measurement. J. Hypertens. 39, 1293–1302 (2021). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [11] Whelton, P. K. et al. 2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Hypertension 71, e13–e115 (2018). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [12] Williams, B. et al. 2018 ESC/ESH Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension: The Task Force for the Management of Arterial Hypertension of the European Society of Cardiology and the European Society of Hypertension. J. Hypertens. 36, 1953–2041 (2018). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“this technique (nowadays incorporated into automatic oscillometric devices with a brachial cuff) remains the dominant BP assessment method and its data form the basis of recommendations by the WHO10 and clinical hypertension guidelines5,6,11,12.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > The clinical relevance of ‘average’ BP levels > The gold standard technique
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [10] World Health Organization. WHO technical specifications for automated non-invasive blood pressure measuring devices with cuff. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/331749 (Geneva, 2020).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Partly supportedcites [5] Unger, T. et al. 2020 International Society of Hypertension Global Hypertension practice guidelines. Hypertension 75, 1334–1357 (2020). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In Hypertension Diagnosis – Office BP Measurement (pp. 4–5), the guideline says office BP measurement is the most common basis for diagnosis and follow-up and recommends an electronic oscillometric upper-arm cuff device. It lists a Korotkoff-sound auscultatory device as an alternative, not as a technique incorporated into oscillometric devices. The cited guideline therefore supports the role of brachial-cuff BP measurements in clinical recommendations, but not that methodological equivalence or the claim about WHO recommendations. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [6] Stergiou, G. S. et al. 2021 European Society of Hypertension practice guidelines for office and out-of-office blood pressure measurement. J. Hypertens. 39, 1293–1302 (2021). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [11] Whelton, P. K. et al. 2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Hypertension 71, e13–e115 (2018). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [12] Williams, B. et al. 2018 ESC/ESH Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension: The Task Force for the Management of Arterial Hypertension of the European Society of Cardiology and the European Society of Hypertension. J. Hypertens. 36, 1953–2041 (2018). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“HBPM is currently recommended as the best method for long-term follow-up of patients who are being treated for hypertension6,12,44.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Classic and novel BP monitoring methods > Home BP monitoring and BPV
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [6] Stergiou, G. S. et al. 2021 European Society of Hypertension practice guidelines for office and out-of-office blood pressure measurement. J. Hypertens. 39, 1293–1302 (2021). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [12] Williams, B. et al. 2018 ESC/ESH Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension: The Task Force for the Management of Arterial Hypertension of the European Society of Cardiology and the European Society of Hypertension. J. Hypertens. 36, 1953–2041 (2018). source
- Supportedcites [44] Parati, G. et al. Home blood pressure monitoring: methodology, clinical relevance and practical application: a 2021 position paper by the Working Group on Blood Pressure Monitoring and Cardiovascular Variability of the European Society of Hypertension. J. Hypertens. 39, 1742–1767 (2021). source
The ‘HOME vs. ABPM’ section (page not available) recommends HBPM for long-term follow-up, while reserving ABPM for situations needing special evaluation. It also says current guidelines recommend HBPM particularly for monitoring long-term BP control in treated hypertensive patients. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“A meta-analysis of studies that compared intra-arterial BP readings with brachial cuff BP readings showed that the latter underestimated systolic BP levels and overestimated intra-arterial diastolic BP levels (by 5–6 mmHg for each measurement), resulting in considerable underestimation of pulse pressure34.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Classic and novel BP monitoring methods > Intra-arterial versus non-invasive cuff-based methods
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [34] Picone, D. S. et al. Accuracy of cuff-measured blood pressure: systematic reviews and meta-analyses. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 70, 572–586 (2017). source
The Abstract reports that cuff BP underestimated intra-arterial brachial systolic BP by 5.7 mm Hg and overestimated intra-arterial diastolic BP by 5.5 mm Hg. The Cuff BP Validation Standards section reports significant underestimation of intra-arterial brachial pulse pressure. (LLM, conf=0.95)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“To date, no regulatory requirements exist for independent validation of all BP devices that are put on the market (using the universally accepted International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard), despite increasing calls to mandate validation of these devices16.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > The clinical relevance of ‘average’ BP levels > Classification, diagnostic and treatment thresholds
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [16] Sharman, J. E. et al. Lancet Commission on Hypertension Group position statement on the global improvement of accuracy standards for devices that measure blood pressure. J. Hypertens. 38, 21–29 (2020). source
In ‘How a Blood Pressure Device Becomes Approved for Sale’ (page unavailable), the paper says conformity with published standards is not required by law. In ‘Recommendations and Actions to Address Identified Problems’ (page unavailable), it calls for legislation requiring independent validation under the ISO standard before sale, supporting the claim that such a requirement does not yet cover all marketed BP devices. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“at present, a standardized validation protocol has not been established for assessing the accuracy of these devices, and thus their accuracy and clinical usefulness remain questionable37.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Classic and novel BP monitoring methods > Central BP levels and variability
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [37] Sharman, J. E. et al. Validation of non-invasive central blood pressure devices: ARTERY Society Task Force consensus statement on protocol standardization. Eur. Heart J. 38, 2805–2812 (2017). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction (page unavailable) says that, without standardized guidelines, central BP devices had not been accuracy-tested using uniform, comparable protocols. But the Conclusions and future directions (page unavailable) caution against dismissing their clinical use: some devices had already shown physiological or prognostic significance. The claim therefore overstates how questionable their clinical usefulness is. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Mounting evidence, including data from the CARDIA study27 and the ARIC cohort28, indicates that individuals with high cumulative systolic BP levels over many years have worse cardiac function and increased risk of incident heart failure in later life compared with individuals with lower cumulative systolic BP levels.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > The clinical relevance of ‘average’ BP levels > BP snapshots versus BP profile
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [27] Kishi, S. et al. Cumulative blood pressure in early adulthood and cardiac dysfunction in middle age: the CARDIA study. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 65, 2679–2687 (2015). source
The Results report that higher cumulative systolic BP over 25 years was associated with measures of worse left ventricular function in CARDIA participants at middle age. This citation identifies the CARDIA evidence; the citing sentence separately attaches the ARIC citation to the incident-heart-failure evidence. The CARDIA paper itself used a subclinical cardiac-function endpoint, not incident heart failure. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Supportedcites [28] Teramoto, K. et al. Mid- to late-life time-averaged cumulative blood pressure and late-life cardiac structure, function, and heart failure. Hypertension 76, 808–818 (2020). source
The citation is attached to the ARIC cohort, not the CARDIA study. The Abstract reports that higher cumulative systolic BP over approximately 24 years was associated with worse late-life cardiac measures and greater risk of incident heart failure; the Conclusion states the same finding. Page numbers were not provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.94)
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“These devices use several different parameters and techniques to assess BP levels, including pulse transit time, pulse wave analysis, photoplethysmography and applanation tonometry, and have different intended uses (such as wearable devices for occasional use or for short-term continuous monitoring in an intensive care unit)55,56.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Classic and novel BP monitoring methods > Cuffless wearable BP devices and BPV
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [55] Mukkamala, R. et al. Evaluation of the accuracy of cuffless blood pressure measurement devices: challenges and proposals. Hypertension 78, 1161–1167 (2021). source
The Types of Cuffless BP Measurement Devices section (page unavailable) distinguishes cuff-calibrated from calibration-free devices and describes wearable and anesthesia/surgery uses. The Proposals section (page unavailable) explicitly distinguishes intended uses such as screening, diagnosis, and therapy titration; the paper’s references also identify different measurement techniques. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [56] Mukkamala R., Stergiou G. S. & Avolio A. P. Cuffless blood pressure measurement. Annu. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 24, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-bioeng-110220-014644 (2022). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“A detailed evaluation of home BP monitoring (HBPM) devices available online in Australia reported that only 18.3% of upper-arm-cuff devices have been validated for accuracy, and that validated cuff BP devices are more expensive than non-validated devices17.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > The clinical relevance of ‘average’ BP levels > Classification, diagnostic and treatment thresholds
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [17] Picone, D. S. et al. Nonvalidated home blood pressure devices dominate the online marketplace in Australia: major implications for cardiovascular risk management. Hypertension 75, 1593–1599 (2020). source
The Abstract (p. 4) reports that 18.3% of 278 upper-arm cuff devices available online in Australia were validated and that validated cuff devices cost more than non-validated ones. The Results (p. 8) also report a significant price difference for upper-arm and wrist cuff devices. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“A 2016 meta-analysis of data from prospective cohort studies and clinical trials showed that increased long-term systolic BPV was associated with a higher risk of all-cause and cardiovascular death, cardiovascular events, coronary heart disease and stroke8.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Clinical relevance of BPV > Clinical implications of BPV
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [8] Stevens, S. L. et al. Blood pressure variability and cardiovascular disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 354, i4098 (2016). source
The Abstract reports that the review included observational cohort studies and clinical trial cohorts. It states that increased long-term systolic blood-pressure variability was associated with higher risks of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease mortality and events, coronary heart disease, and stroke. (LLM, conf=0.95)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Moreover, substantial heterogeneity was present in the BPV indices used across the studies included in the meta-analysis, with standard deviation being the most common parameter8.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Clinical relevance of BPV > Clinical implications of BPV
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [8] Stevens, S. L. et al. Blood pressure variability and cardiovascular disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 354, i4098 (2016). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Methods (Data analysis and statistical methods; page unavailable) list several BP variability measures used by studies, supporting the point that indices differed. They place standard deviation first in a preference hierarchy for selecting results, but do not say it was the most common index. The Discussion’s finding of significant heterogeneity concerns study results, not the indices used. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“However, cuffless devices have specific accuracy issues that are not present in the automated cuff BP devices, such as the need for individual user calibration and their questionable accuracy in tracking BP changes after calibration55,56.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Classic and novel BP monitoring methods > Cuffless wearable BP devices and BPV
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [55] Mukkamala, R. et al. Evaluation of the accuracy of cuffless blood pressure measurement devices: challenges and proposals. Hypertension 78, 1161–1167 (2021). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Types of Cuffless BP Measurement Devices section says cuff-calibrated devices require calibration for an individual, but calibration-free devices do not. The Critical Review section says the accuracy of cuff-calibrated devices in tracking BP changes within an individual often remains unclear. Thus the tracking concern is supported, while the need for individual calibration does not apply to cuffless devices generally; page numbers were not provided. (LLM, conf=0.85)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [56] Mukkamala R., Stergiou G. S. & Avolio A. P. Cuffless blood pressure measurement. Annu. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 24, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-bioeng-110220-014644 (2022). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Most of these devices require initial calibration in each user, which is usually performed by inputting a BP value measured using an upper-arm-cuff device or by inputting simple demographic data that are known to correlate with BP level (such as age and sex), with periodic recalibration required over time (every few hours, days or weeks).”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Classic and novel BP monitoring methods > Cuffless wearable BP devices and BPV
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [6] Stergiou, G. S. et al. 2021 European Society of Hypertension practice guidelines for office and out-of-office blood pressure measurement. J. Hypertens. 39, 1293–1302 (2021). source
- Could not verifycites [17] Picone, D. S. et al. Nonvalidated home blood pressure devices dominate the online marketplace in Australia: major implications for cardiovascular risk management. Hypertension 75, 1593–1599 (2020). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (p. 7) and Discussion (p. 11) address the types and validation status of BP devices sold online, not how users calibrate them. Searches for cuffless-device calibration, demographic inputs, and periodic recalibration found no passage supporting the claim. (LLM, conf=0.76)
- Partly supportedcites [55] Mukkamala, R. et al. Evaluation of the accuracy of cuffless blood pressure measurement devices: challenges and proposals. Hypertension 78, 1161–1167 (2021). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The “Types of Cuffless BP Measurement Devices” section says cuff-calibrated devices require periodic arm-cuff measurements, with intervals ranging from hours to weeks. It also identifies calibration-free devices that do not require calibration for each user, and does not establish that most devices require it. The “Simulation study” section treats demographic input as a feature of some calibration-free devices, not as periodic recalibration. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Therefore, these devices can provide detailed information on true BP profile and behaviour over time, as well as all types of BPV (including short-term to long-term BPV6,55–57), and have great potential for use in screening, early diagnosis, close monitoring and optimal management of hypertension.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Classic and novel BP monitoring methods > Cuffless wearable BP devices and BPV
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [6] Stergiou, G. S. et al. 2021 European Society of Hypertension practice guidelines for office and out-of-office blood pressure measurement. J. Hypertens. 39, 1293–1302 (2021). source
- Partly supportedcites [55] Mukkamala, R. et al. Evaluation of the accuracy of cuffless blood pressure measurement devices: challenges and proposals. Hypertension 78, 1161–1167 (2021). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Potential of Cuffless Blood Pressure Measurement Devices section says these devices could provide a complete evaluation of BP level and behavior across daily circumstances and long periods. But the Critical Review of Data Presentation in Recent Studies cautions that their accuracy in tracking short- or long-term BP changes within an individual often remains unclear. The source therefore supports the potential for detailed monitoring, not the unqualified claim that cuffless devices can characterize all types of BP variability. (LLM, conf=0.85)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [56] Mukkamala R., Stergiou G. S. & Avolio A. P. Cuffless blood pressure measurement. Annu. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 24, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-bioeng-110220-014644 (2022). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Furthermore, in the ACCORD trial76, visit-to-visit BPV was associated with the primary cardiovascular outcome, but this relationship was dependent on baseline BP levels; a stronger association was more evident in patients with low and high strata of baseline systolic and diastolic BP levels.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Clinical relevance of BPV > Clinical implications of BPV
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [76] Nuyujukian, D. S., Zhou, J. J., Koska, J. & Reaven, P. D. Refining determinants of associations of visit-to-visit blood pressure variability with cardiovascular risk: results from the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes trial. J. Hypertens. 39, 2173–2182 (2021). source
Split into 2 atoms — 2 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Raised BP levels continue to be the leading cause of death globally9, highlighting the importance of accurate, broad and frequent assessment of BP levels in the general population.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Conclusions
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [9] GBD. 2019 Risk Factors Collaborators. Global burden of 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet 396, 1223–1249 (2020). source
The Results section (Global attributable burden) identifies high systolic blood pressure as the leading global Level 2 risk factor for attributable deaths in 2019. That supports the cited claim about raised BP; the statement about the importance of frequent assessment is the citing authors’ own conclusion. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Interestingly, diastolic BPV was strongly associated with coronary heart disease, especially in patients with a history of cardiovascular disease and low baseline BP levels, which might indicate a pathophysiological mechanism of reduced coronary perfusion during diastole in patients with diastolic BPV76.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Clinical relevance of BPV > Clinical implications of BPV
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [76] Nuyujukian, D. S., Zhou, J. J., Koska, J. & Reaven, P. D. Refining determinants of associations of visit-to-visit blood pressure variability with cardiovascular risk: results from the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes trial. J. Hypertens. 39, 2173–2182 (2021). source
The Results section reports a strong association between diastolic BP variability and major coronary heart disease in participants with prior cardiovascular disease, strongest among those with low baseline blood pressure. The Discussion presents reduced coronary perfusion during diastole as a possible mechanism, matching the citing sentence’s tentative wording. (LLM, conf=0.94)
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In an analysis of the SPRINT trial77,78, which enrolled patients with hypertension and high cardiovascular risk, all-cause mortality was independently associated with visit-to-visit systolic BPV quantified using VIM or maximum minus minimum BP levels, but was not associated with systolic BPV quantified using the coefficient of variation.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Clinical relevance of BPV > Clinical implications of BPV
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [77] Chang, T. I. et al. Visit-to-visit office blood pressure variability and cardiovascular outcomes in SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial). Hypertension 70, 751–758 (2017). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
- Partly supportedcites [78] Cheng, Y. et al. Visit-to-visit office blood pressure variability combined with Framingham risk score to predict all-cause mortality: a post hoc analysis of the systolic blood pressure intervention trial. J. Clin. Hypertens. 23, 1516–1525 (2021). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“but their accuracy and utility remain uncertain”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“the implications of BP variability on cardiovascular outcomes have largely been ignored, with limited application in clinical practice”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [6] Stergiou, G. S. et al. 2021 European Society of Hypertension practice guidelines for office and out-of-office blood pressure measurement. J. Hypertens. 39, 1293–1302 (2021). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Novel cuffless wearable technologies might provide a detailed assessment of the 24 h BP profile and behaviour over weeks or months.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Abstract
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These devices offer many advantages for researchers and patients compared with traditional BP monitors”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“At present, 24 h ABPM is recommended as the best available method for diagnosing hypertension6,12.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Classic and novel BP monitoring methods > Ambulatory BP monitoring and BPV
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [6] Stergiou, G. S. et al. 2021 European Society of Hypertension practice guidelines for office and out-of-office blood pressure measurement. J. Hypertens. 39, 1293–1302 (2021). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [12] Williams, B. et al. 2018 ESC/ESH Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension: The Task Force for the Management of Arterial Hypertension of the European Society of Cardiology and the European Society of Hypertension. J. Hypertens. 36, 1953–2041 (2018). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“The concept of cumulative BP or BP load, defined as the percentage of abnormally elevated BP readings over a period of time, although not identical to BPV, also illustrates how frequent elevations in BP levels are linked with increased cardiovascular risk26.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > The clinical relevance of ‘average’ BP levels > BP snapshots versus BP profile
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [26] Schutte, A. E. & Gnanenthiran, S. R. Toward a better understanding of why cumulative blood pressure is such a strong predictor of cardiovascular outcomes. Hypertension 78, 1267–1269 (2021). source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Office BP assessment also misses masked hypertension (defined as normal BP levels in the office but elevated BP levels outside of the office), a condition present in 10–20% of individuals attending BP clinics20.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > The clinical relevance of ‘average’ BP levels > Classification, diagnostic and treatment thresholds
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [20] Stergiou, G. S. et al. Phenotypes of masked hypertension: isolated ambulatory, isolated home and dual masked hypertension. J. Hypertens. 38, 218–223 (2020). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite these advantages, 24 h ambulatory BPV has inconsistent prognostic value, probably owing to the imperfect reproducibility of 24 h ABPM and the variable day-to-day activities of individuals.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Classic and novel BP monitoring methods > Ambulatory BP monitoring and BPV
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Aside from traditional ABPM and HBPM devices, wearable watch-like BP devices with a thin wrist-cuff have been developed, which can take BP measurements when prompted by the individual at any time of day, and are currently being validated for accuracy54.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Classic and novel BP monitoring methods > Complementary roles of ABPM and HBPM
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [54] Kuwabara, M., Harada, K., Hishiki, Y. & Kario, K. Validation of two watch-type wearable blood pressure monitors according to the ANSI/AAMI/ISO81060-2:2013 guidelines: Omron HEM-6410T-ZM and HEM-6410T-ZL. J. Clin. Hypertens. 21, 853–858 (2019). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“the prognostic value of office BPV is dependent on the measurement methodology (for example, the number of visits or the use of standardized protocols) and drug treatment (dosing time and compliance)43.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Classic and novel BP monitoring methods > Office BP readings and BPV
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [43] Levitan, E. B., Kaciroti, N., Oparil, S., Julius, S. & Muntner, P. Blood pressure measurement device, number and timing of visits, and intra-individual visit-to-visit variability of blood pressure. J. Clin. Hypertens. 14, 744–750 (2012). source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Two studies that assessed 24 h intra-arterial BP recordings in patients hospitalized with essential hypertension showed that BPV was related to the rate and severity of target-organ damage and, more importantly, was predictive of disease progression32,33.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Classic and novel BP monitoring methods > Intra-arterial versus non-invasive cuff-based methods
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [32] Parati, G., Pomidossi, G., Albini, F., Malaspina, D. & Mancia, G. Relationship of 24-h blood pressure mean and variability to severity of target-organ damage in hypertension. J. Hypertens. 5, 93–98 (1987). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [33] Frattola, A., Parati, G., Cuspidi, C., Albini, F. & Mancia, G. Prognostic value of 24-h blood pressure variability. J. Hypertens. 11, 1133–1137 (1993). source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“HBPM provides a more accurate portrayal of BPV than in-office BP measurement, given that it can provide a much larger number of readings over time.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Classic and novel BP monitoring methods > Home BP monitoring and BPV
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Both BP levels and BPV are linked to the arterial site at which the BP is recorded and the time that the reading is taken31.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Classic and novel BP monitoring methods
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [31] Stergiou, G. S., Kollias, A. & Protogerou, A. D. Evidence on blood pressure measurement methodology and clinical implementation: research agenda for the 21st century. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 70, 587–589 (2017). source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“However, these two methods have been shown to be inconsistent in the diagnosis of white-coat or masked hypertension in approximately 15–20% of individuals, in which a diagnosis of hypertension was confirmed by one method only6,11.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Classic and novel BP monitoring methods > Complementary roles of ABPM and HBPM
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [6] Stergiou, G. S. et al. 2021 European Society of Hypertension practice guidelines for office and out-of-office blood pressure measurement. J. Hypertens. 39, 1293–1302 (2021). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [11] Whelton, P. K. et al. 2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Hypertension 71, e13–e115 (2018). source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Large meta-analyses have shown that central systolic BP levels, compared with their brachial counterpart, are more closely associated with indices of target-organ damage and have independent prognostic value in terms of cardiovascular outcomes35,36.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Classic and novel BP monitoring methods > Central BP levels and variability
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [35] Kollias, A., Lagou, S., Zeniodi, M. E., Boubouchairopoulou, N. & Stergiou, G. S. Association of central versus brachial blood pressure with target-organ damage: systematic review and meta-analysis. Hypertension 67, 183–190 (2016). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [36] Vlachopoulos, C. et al. Prediction of cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality with central haemodynamics: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. Heart J. 31, 1865–1871 (2010). source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The invasive intra-arterial method provides direct assessment of BP levels and is theoretically the gold standard for measuring BP levels and short-term BPV.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Classic and novel BP monitoring methods > Intra-arterial versus non-invasive cuff-based methods
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Collectively, the challenge is that office BP assessment is a crude measurement and when used in isolation might often result in an incorrect or a missed diagnosis of hypertension.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > The clinical relevance of ‘average’ BP levels > Classification, diagnostic and treatment thresholds
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“All these classifications of BPV represent complex, continuous and dynamic interactions between intrinsic (regulatory neurohormonal and cardiovascular) mechanisms and extrinsic (environmental and behavioural) factors and are essential for maintaining BP ‘homeostasis’ to ensure adequate vital organ perfusion under varying conditions41,42.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Clinical relevance of BPV > Types and indices of BPV
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [41] Parati, G., Ochoa, J. E., Lombardi, C. & Bilo, G. Assessment and management of blood-pressure variability. Nat. Rev. Cardiol. 10, 143–155 (2013). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [42] Parati, G., Torlasco, C., Pengo, M., Bilo, G. & Ochoa, J. E. Blood pressure variability: its relevance for cardiovascular homeostasis and cardiovascular diseases. Hypertens. Res. 43, 609–620 (2020). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Given that both the standard deviation and the coefficient of variation are affected by diurnal BP variation, these parameters should be weighted for the duration of the awake and asleep periods when assessing 24 h BPV61.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Clinical relevance of BPV > Types and indices of BPV
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [61] Bilo, G. et al. A new method for assessing 24-h blood pressure variability after excluding the contribution of nocturnal blood pressure fall. J. Hypertens. 25, 2058–2066 (2007). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In the VALUE trial75, a higher visit-to-visit systolic BPV was associated with increased risk of cardiovascular events in patients with hypertension, irrespective of baseline cardiovascular risk, and this association was stronger in younger patients and those with lower systolic BP levels.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Clinical relevance of BPV > Clinical implications of BPV
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [75] Mehlum, M. H. et al. Blood pressure variability and risk of cardiovascular events and death in patients with hypertension and different baseline risks. Eur. Heart J. 39, 2243–2251 (2018). source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“BP readings obtained using traditional methods show only moderate reproducibility, with out-of-office BP measurements being more reproducible than those taken in the office63.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Clinical relevance of BPV > Clinical implications of BPV
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [63] Stergiou, G. S. et al. Reproducibility of home, ambulatory, and clinic blood pressure: implications for the design of trials for the assessment of antihypertensive drug efficacy. Am. J. Hypertens. 15, 101–104 (2002). source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Conversely, increased BPV might also reflect alterations in functional and structural cardiovascular and renal regulatory mechanisms, subclinical or established cardiovascular damage, or underlying pathological conditions associated with autonomic dysfunction, which in turn are linked to poor prognosis41,42.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Clinical relevance of BPV > Types and indices of BPV
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [41] Parati, G., Ochoa, J. E., Lombardi, C. & Bilo, G. Assessment and management of blood-pressure variability. Nat. Rev. Cardiol. 10, 143–155 (2013). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [42] Parati, G., Torlasco, C., Pengo, M., Bilo, G. & Ochoa, J. E. Blood pressure variability: its relevance for cardiovascular homeostasis and cardiovascular diseases. Hypertens. Res. 43, 609–620 (2020). source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, all-cause and cardiovascular mortality was significantly increased only in the highest BPV decile, implying that the pattern of this association might not be linear.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Clinical relevance of BPV > Clinical implications of BPV
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [68] Juhanoja, E. P. et al. Outcome-driven thresholds for increased home blood pressure variability. Hypertension 69, 599–607 (2017). source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“These phenotypes also have only moderate reproducibility, which is attributable to inherent BPV6,20.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Clinical relevance of BPV > Clinical implications of BPV
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [6] Stergiou, G. S. et al. 2021 European Society of Hypertension practice guidelines for office and out-of-office blood pressure measurement. J. Hypertens. 39, 1293–1302 (2021). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [20] Stergiou, G. S. et al. Phenotypes of masked hypertension: isolated ambulatory, isolated home and dual masked hypertension. J. Hypertens. 38, 218–223 (2020). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Furthermore, the coefficient of variation (the standard deviation divided by the corresponding mean) is another widely used parameter of BPV because it is independent of the association with the average BP levels and thus enables the comparison between data with different average values41,42.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Clinical relevance of BPV > Types and indices of BPV
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [41] Parati, G., Ochoa, J. E., Lombardi, C. & Bilo, G. Assessment and management of blood-pressure variability. Nat. Rev. Cardiol. 10, 143–155 (2013). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [42] Parati, G., Torlasco, C., Pengo, M., Bilo, G. & Ochoa, J. E. Blood pressure variability: its relevance for cardiovascular homeostasis and cardiovascular diseases. Hypertens. Res. 43, 609–620 (2020). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“All these indices assess different aspects of the complex BPV phenomenon and do not have uniform clinical and prognostic values.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Clinical relevance of BPV > Types and indices of BPV
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [41] Parati, G., Ochoa, J. E., Lombardi, C. & Bilo, G. Assessment and management of blood-pressure variability. Nat. Rev. Cardiol. 10, 143–155 (2013). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [42] Parati, G., Torlasco, C., Pengo, M., Bilo, G. & Ochoa, J. E. Blood pressure variability: its relevance for cardiovascular homeostasis and cardiovascular diseases. Hypertens. Res. 43, 609–620 (2020). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Home BP monitoring devices seem to be the most feasible and efficient method for long-term self-monitoring in patients with hypertension.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Conclusions
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Cuffless wearable BP monitoring technologies have considerable potential for improving hypertension screening, diagnosis, control and long-term follow-up.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Conclusions
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Office blood pressure (BP) measurements will continue to have a major role in the screening, diagnosis and management of hypertension, and thus need further refinement.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The key challenge is that BP is a continuous dynamic variable that is inadequately represented by the snapshot measurements provided by all the current clinically available methods.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: BP is a continuous dynamic variable.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, all the measurement methods for assessing BPV should be regarded as complementary rather than interchangeable or competitive.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Clinical relevance of BPV > Clinical implications of BPV
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, although the methods currently used to estimate BPV indicate that increased BPV confers an adverse prognosis, its additive value over and beyond that of average BP levels and its role in risk stratification remain unknown.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Clinical relevance of BPV > Barriers in implementation
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, although numerous classes of antihypertensive drugs have similar effects on BP levels, they have differential effects on BPV.”
§ Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques > Clinical relevance of BPV > Antihypertensive drugs and BPV
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [90] Rothwell, P. M. et al. Effects of beta blockers and calcium-channel blockers on within-individual variability in blood pressure and risk of stroke. Lancet Neurol. 9, 469–480 (2010). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
BP is a continuous dynamic variable.
“The key challenge is that BP is a continuous dynamic variable that is inadequately represented by the snapshot measurements provided by all the current clinically available methods.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Snapshot office BP measurements have been extremely effective in predicting cardiovascular risk.
“However, given that snapshot office BP measurements have been extremely effective in predicting cardiovascular risk, the goal of improving cardiovascular risk prediction with existing out-of-office BP monitoring methods or BPV measurement methods remains a challenge.”
The paper relies on this without support.
BP measurement is the only method for diagnosing and managing hypertension.
“Regardless of the advances in novel technologies in this field, BP measurement remains the only method for the diagnosis and management of hypertension.”
Citations
Cites
International Organization for Standardization
(2011) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/springerreference_16847 · Cited by 12,504
Murray, C. J. L., Aravkin, A. Y., Zheng, P., Abbafati, C., Abbas, K. M., Abbasi-Kangevari, M., Abd-Allah, F., Abdelalim, A., Abdollahi, M., Abdollahpour, I., et al. (2020) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(20)30752-2 · Cited by 9,854
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
2020 International Society of Hypertension Global Hypertension Practice Guidelines
Unger, T., Borghi, C., Charchar, F., Khan, N. A., Poulter, N. R., Prabhakaran, D., Ramirez, A., Schlaich, M., Stergiou, G. S., Tomaszewski, M., et al. (2020) · Hypertension · doi:10.1161/hypertensionaha.120.15026 · Cited by 4,132
Self-citationWilliams, B., Mancia, G., Spiering, W., Agabiti Rosei, E., Azizi, M., Burnier, M., Clement, D. L., Coca, A., de Simone, G., Dominiczak, A., et al. (2018) · Journal of Hypertension · doi:10.1097/hjh.0000000000001940 · Cited by 2,885
Rothwell, P. M., Howard, S. C., Dolan, E., O'Brien, E., Dobson, J. E., Dahlöf, B., Sever, P. S., & Poulter, N. R. (2010) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(10)60308-x · Cited by 1,784
Vlachopoulos, C., Aznaouridis, K., O'Rourke, M. F., Safar, M. E., Baou, K., & Stefanadis, C. (2010) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehq024 · Cited by 1,363
2020 International Society of Hypertension global hypertension practice guidelines
Unger, T., Borghi, C., Charchar, F., Khan, N. A., Poulter, N. R., Prabhakaran, D., Ramirez, A., Schlaich, M., Stergiou, G. S., Tomaszewski, M., et al. (2020) · Journal of Hypertension · doi:10.1097/hjh.0000000000002453 · Cited by 1,283
Self-citationKario, K., Pickering, T. G., Umeda, Y., Hoshide, S., Hoshide, Y., Morinari, M., Murata, M., Kuroda, T., Schwartz, J. E., & Shimada, K. (2003) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/01.cir.0000056521.67546.aa · Cited by 1,250
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
Self-citation2024 ESC Guidelines for the management of elevated blood pressure and hypertension
McEvoy, J. W., McCarthy, C. P., Bruno, R. M., Brouwers, S., Canavan, M. D., Ceconi, C., Christodorescu, R. M., Daskalopoulou, S. S., Ferro, C. J., Gerdts, E., et al. (2024) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehae178 · Cited by 2,298
Transforming Cardiovascular Care With Artificial Intelligence: From Discovery to Practice
Khera, R., Oikonomou, E. K., Nadkarni, G. N., Morley, J., Wiens, J., Butte, A. J., & Topol, E. J. (2024) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2024.05.003 · Cited by 324
Barbato, E., Azizi, M., Schmieder, R. E., Lauder, L., Böhm, M., Brouwers, S., Bruno, R. M., Dudek, D., Kahan, T., Kandzari, D. E., et al. (2023) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehad054 · Cited by 188
Stergiou, G. S., Avolio, A. P., Palatini, P., Kyriakoulis, K. G., Schutte, A. E., Mieke, S., Κόλλιας, Α., Parati, G., Asmar, R. G., Pantazis, N., et al. (2023) · Journal of Hypertension · doi:10.1097/hjh.0000000000003483 · Cited by 150
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Schutte, A. E., Kollias, A., & Stergiou, G. S.
- Affiliations
- North-West University (ZA)
- National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (GR)
- Corresponding author
- Schutte, Aletta E.
- Venue
- Nature Reviews Cardiology
- Published
- 2022-04-19
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 643-654
- ISSN
- 1759-5002 (ISSN-L)
- 1759-5010
- PMC
- PMC9017082
- OpenAlex
- W4224274564
- Cited by
- 335
- References
- 109
- Citations by year
- 2026: 77 · 2025: 101 · 2024: 79 · 2023: 70 · 2022: 8
- FWCI
- 13.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Nature Reviews Cardiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- 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 variability, hypertension, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, home blood pressure monitoring, cardiovascular outcomes, blood pressure measurement methods, antihypertensive therapy
- MeSH terms
- Wearable Electronic Devices, Blood Pressure, Blood Pressure Determination, Humans, Hypertension, Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
