Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 158

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Reproducibility of non-invasive and intra-arterial blood pressure monitoring: implications for studies on antihypertensive treatment

Trazzi, Silvia, Mutti, Emanuela, Frattola, Alessandra, Imholz, Ben, Parati, Gianfranco, Mancia, Giuseppe·1991·Journal of Hypertension

Abstract

Ambulatory blood pressure has been shown to be more reproducible than office blood pressure and thus to be more suited for studying the efficacy of antihypertensive drugs. In 34 untreated essential hypertensive subjects, we measured office and 24-h non-invasive or intra-arterial blood pressure twice over a 4-week interval; 24-h intra-arterial blood pressure was obtained by the Oxford method whereas 24-h non-invasive blood pressure was obtained by the automatic SpaceLabs 5300 device, with a 10min (daytime) or 20min (night-time) interval between measurements. The standard deviation of the mean difference (s.d.d.) between blood pressures obtained in each recording was taken as the reciprocal of blood pressure reproducibility. The s.d.d. was highest for office blood pressure and for single blood pressure readings taken from 24-h non-invasive recordings. The s.d.d. fell when the two 24-h average non-invasive blood pressures were considered. The fall was progressively greater as the number of ambulatory readings on which the average was calculated increased from two to 24, no further fall being observed when more than 24 values were considered. The maximal reduction in s.d.d. was 59% (systolic) and 42% (diastolic) as compared with the office s.d.d. The two 24-h mean values obtained by the intra-arterial approach were slightly more closely correlated than those obtained non-invasively. However, at comparable sampling rates, the s.d.d. was not substantially lower with 24-h intra-arterial blood pressure and including in the calculation the average of the thousand readings provided by this approach did not cause any further improvement. Thus, 24-h average blood pressure is more reproducible than office blood pressure. The increased reproducibility is a function of the number of ambulatory blood pressure readings, but a maximal advantage can be obtained at a relatively low sampling rate. This means that in therapeutic trials there may be no need to assess blood pressure too frequently or to consider the huge number of values provided by intra-arterial monitoring

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 · 10.1097/00004872-199102000-00003

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

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

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

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

Cited by

See all 158

Metadata

Authors
Trazzi, S., Mutti, E., Frattola, A., Imholz, B., Parati, G., & Mancia, G.
Venue
Journal of Hypertension
Published
1991-02
Volume
9
Issue
2
Pages
115-119
ISSN
0263-6352 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2010263754
Cited by
158
References
0
FWCI
5.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Reproducibility of non-invasive and intra-arterial blood pressure monitoring: implications for studies on antihypertensive treatment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00004872-199102000-00003
The paper
Trazzi, S., Mutti, E., Frattola, A., Imholz, B., Parati, G., & Mancia, G. (1991). Reproducibility of non-invasive and intra-arterial blood pressure monitoring: implications for studies on antihypertensive treatment. Journal of Hypertension. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004872-199102000-00003

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.