Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 383

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Prognostic superiority of daytime ambulatory over conventional blood pressure in four populations: a meta-analysis of 7030 individuals

Open access
Hansen, Tine W, Kikuya, Masahiro, Thijs, Lutgarde, Björklund-Bodegård, Kristina, Kuznetsova, Tatiana, Ohkubo, Takayoshi, Richart, Tom, Torp-Pedersen, Christian, Lind, Lars, Jeppesen, Jørgen, Ibsen, Hans, Imai, Yutaka, Staessen, Jan A·2007·Journal of Hypertension

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the multivariate-adjusted predictive value of systolic and diastolic blood pressures on conventional (CBP) and daytime (10-20 h) ambulatory (ABP) measurement. METHODS: We randomly recruited 7,030 subjects (mean age 56.2 years; 44.8% women) from populations in Belgium, Denmark, Japan and Sweden. We constructed the International Database on Ambulatory blood pressure and Cardiovascular Outcomes. RESULTS: During follow-up (median = 9.5 years), 932 subjects died. Neither CBP nor ABP predicted total mortality, of which 60.9% was due to noncardiovascular causes. The incidence of fatal combined with nonfatal cardiovascular events amounted to 863 (228 deaths, 326 strokes and 309 cardiac events). In multivariate-adjusted continuous analyses, both CBP and ABP predicted cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, cardiac and coronary events. However, in fully-adjusted models, including both CBP and ABP, CBP lost its predictive value (P >or= 0.052), whereas systolic and diastolic ABP retained their prognostic significance (P or= 0.21). In adjusted categorical analyses, normotension was the referent group (CBP < 140/90 mmHg and ABP < 135/85 mmHg). Adjusted hazard ratios for all cardiovascular events were 1.22 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.96-1.53; P = 0.09] for white-coat hypertension (>or= 140/90 and < 135/85 mmHg); 1.62 (95% CI = 1.35-1.96; P < 0.0001) for masked hypertension (< 140/90 and >or= 135/85 mmHg); and 1.80 (95% CI = 1.59-2.03; P < 0.0001) for sustained hypertension (>or= 140/90 and >or= 135/85 mmHg). CONCLUSIONS: ABP is superior to CBP in predicting cardiovascular events, but not total and noncardiovascular mortality. Cardiovascular risk gradually increases from normotension over white-coat and masked hypertension to sustained hypertension.

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/hjh.0b013e3281c49da5

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

See all 383

Metadata

Authors
Hansen, T. W., Kikuya, M., Thijs, L., Björklund-Bodegård, K., Kuznetsova, T., Ohkubo, T., Richart, T., Torp-Pedersen, C., Lind, L., Jeppesen, J., Ibsen, H., Imai, Y., & Staessen, J. A.
Venue
Journal of Hypertension
Published
2007-08
Volume
25
Issue
8
Pages
1554-1564
ISSN
0263-6352 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2038197016
Cited by
383
References
4
FWCI
2.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Prognostic superiority of daytime ambulatory over conventional blood pressure in four populations: a meta-analysis of 7030 individuals. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/hjh.0b013e3281c49da5
The paper
Hansen, T. W., Kikuya, M., Thijs, L., Björklund-Bodegård, K., Kuznetsova, T., Ohkubo, T., Richart, T., Torp-Pedersen, C., Lind, L., Jeppesen, J., Ibsen, H., Imai, Y., & Staessen, J. A. (2007). Prognostic superiority of daytime ambulatory over conventional blood pressure in four populations: a meta-analysis of 7030 individuals. Journal of Hypertension. https://doi.org/10.1097/hjh.0b013e3281c49da5

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.