Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 223

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

High prevalence of masked uncontrolled hypertension in people with treated hypertension

Open access
Banegas, J. R., Ruilope, L. M., de la Sierra, A., de la Cruz, J. J., Gorostidi, M., Segura, J., Martell, N., Garcia-Puig, J., Deanfield, J., Williams, B.·2014·European Heart Journal

Abstract

AIM: There are limited data on the quality of treated blood pressure (BP) control during normal daily life, and in particular, the prevalence of 'masked uncontrolled hypertension' (MUCH) in people with treated and seemingly well-controlled BP is unknown. This is important because masked hypertension in 'treatment naïve' patients is associated with a high risk of cardiovascular events. We therefore conducted the first study to define the prevalence and characteristics of MUCH among a large sample of hypertensive patients in routine clinical practice in whom BP was treated and controlled to recommended clinic BP goals. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analysed data from the Spanish Society of Hypertension ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) Registry and identified patients with treated and controlled BP according to current international guidelines (clinic BP <140/90 mmHg). Masked uncontrolled hypertension was diagnosed in these patients if despite controlled clinic BP, the mean 24-h ABPM average remained elevated (24-h systolic BP ≥130 mmHg and/or 24-h diastolic BP ≥80 mmHg). From 62 788 patients with treated BP in the Spanish registry, we identified 14 840 with treated and controlled clinic BP, of whom 4608 patients (31.1%) had MUCH according to 24-h ABPM criteria (mean age 59.4 years, 59.7% men). The prevalence of MUCH was significantly higher in males, patients with borderline clinic BP (130-9/80-9 mmHg), and patients at high cardiovascular risk (smokers, diabetes, obesity). Masked uncontrolled hypertension was most often because of poor control of nocturnal BP, with the proportion of patients in whom MUCH was solely attributable to an elevated nocturnal BP almost double that solely attributable to daytime BP elevation (24.3 vs. 12.9%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of masked suboptimal BP control in patients with treated and well-controlled clinic BP is high. Clinic BP monitoring alone is thus inadequate to optimize BP control because many patients have an elevated nocturnal BP. These findings suggest that ABPM should become more routine to confirm BP control, especially in higher risk groups and/or those with borderline control of clinic BP.

Overview

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

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

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/eurheartj/ehu016

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

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

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

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Cited by

See all 223

Metadata

Authors
Banegas, J. R., Ruilope, L. M., de la Sierra, A., de la Cruz, J. J., Gorostidi, M., Segura, J., Martell, N., Garcia-Puig, J., Deanfield, J., & Williams, B.
Venue
European Heart Journal
Published
2014-02-03
Volume
35
Issue
46
Pages
3304-3312
ISSN
  • 0195-668X (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-9645
OpenAlex
W2106510634
Cited by
223
References
6
FWCI
16.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

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

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

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

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

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: High prevalence of masked uncontrolled hypertension in people with treated hypertension. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/eurheartj/ehu016
The paper
Banegas, J. R., Ruilope, L. M., de la Sierra, A., de la Cruz, J. J., Gorostidi, M., Segura, J., Martell, N., Garcia-Puig, J., Deanfield, J., & Williams, B. (2014). High prevalence of masked uncontrolled hypertension in people with treated hypertension. European Heart Journal. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehu016

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.