Cited by 53Blood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesNon-Invasive Vital Sign MonitoringCardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention

What is the optimal interval between successive home blood pressure readings using an automated oscillometric device?

Open access
Eguchi, Kazuo, Kuruvilla, Sujith, Ogedegbe, Gbenga, Gerin, William, Schwartz, Joseph E, Pickering, Thomas G·2009·Journal of Hypertension

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To clarify whether a shorter interval between three successive home blood pressure (HBP) readings (10 s vs. 1 min) taken twice a day gives a better prediction of the average 24-h BP and better patient compliance. DESIGN: We enrolled 56 patients from a hypertension clinic (mean age: 60 +/- 14 years; 54% female patients). The study consisted of three clinic visits, with two 4-week periods of self-monitoring of HBP between them, and a 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring at the second visit. Using a crossover design, with order randomized, the oscillometric HBP device (HEM-5001) could be programmed to take three consecutive readings at either 10-s or 1-min intervals, each of which was done for 4 weeks. Patients were asked to measure three HBP readings in the morning and evening. All the readings were stored in the memory of the monitors. RESULTS: The analyses were performed using the second-third HBP readings. The average systolic BP/diastolic BP for the 10-s and 1-min intervals at home were 136.1 +/- 15.8/77.5 +/- 9.5 and 133.2 +/- 15.5/76.9 +/- 9.3 mmHg (P = 0.001/0.19 for the differences in systolic BP and diastolic BP), respectively. The 1-min BP readings were significantly closer to the average of awake ambulatory BP (131 +/- 14/79 +/- 10 mmHg) than the 10-s interval readings. There was no significant difference in patients' compliance in taking adequate numbers of readings at the different time intervals. CONCLUSION: The 1-min interval between HBP readings gave a closer agreement with the daytime average BP than the 10-s interval.

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.0b013e32832a6e39

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

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

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

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Cross-sectional studies have mainly focused on the effect of different numbers of readings and days on average HBP, HBP variability and reproducibility; cross-classification according to office and home BP; association with ABPM values; and association with indices of preclinical target-organ damage.

    “Cross-sectional studies have mainly focused on the effect of different numbers of readings and days on average HBP, HBP variability and reproducibility; cross-classification according to office and home BP (normotension, white-coat, masked and sustained hypertension); association with ABPM values and association with indices of preclinical target-organ damage [17,18,127–133]”

    From 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 (2021) · cites this paper as [131]

    The Results and Conclusion (pages not provided) compare averages from successive home readings and their agreement with ambulatory blood pressure, supporting those parts of the sentence. The paper does not analyze the number of measurement days, classify participants by office and home BP, or assess preclinical target-organ damage; its Introduction mentions reproducibility and target-organ damage as findings of other studies. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Outcome studies in Japan, Greece and Finland with somewhat different HBPM protocols, as well as the IDHOCO database, indicated that the prognostic value of HBPM for cardiovascular disease is increased within the range of 1-7 days, with most benefit achieved in the first 3-4 days.

    “Outcome studies in Japan, Greece and Finland with somewhat different HBPM protocols, as well as of the IDHOCO database indicated that the prognostic value of HBPM for cardiovascular disease is increased within the range of 1–7 days, with most of this benefit achieved in the first 3–4 days [131,136–138]”

    From 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 (2021) · cites this paper as [131]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 2 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In the IDHOCO database (n = 4802), consistency in diagnosing hypertension phenotypes between consecutive monitoring days improved by averaging more HBP measurements, with near perfect agreement after the sixth monitoring day for both office and home BP cross-classification.

    “In the International Database on Home blood pressure in relation to Cardiovascular Outcomes (IDHOCO) database (n = 4802), the consistency in diagnosing hypertension phenotypes between consecutive monitoring days was improved by averaging more HBP measurements with near perfect agreement after the sixth monitoring day for both office and home BP cross-classification [131]”

    From 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 (2021) · cites this paper as [131]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 2 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 27 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [24]James GD Pickering TG Yee LS Harshfield GA Riva S Laragh JH The reproducibility of average ambulatory, home, and clinic pressures Hypertension 1988 11 6 Pt 1 545 549 3384470

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Eguchi, K., Kuruvilla, S., Ogedegbe, G., Gerin, W., Schwartz, J. E., & Pickering, T. G.
Affiliations
  • Jichi Medical University (JP)
  • Columbia University Irving Medical Center (US)
  • Stony Brook University (US)
Corresponding author
Eguchi, Kazuo
Venue
Journal of Hypertension
Published
2009-06
Volume
27
Issue
6
Pages
1172-1177
ISSN
0263-6352 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2079814995
Cited by
53
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 3 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 3
FWCI
1.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Hypertension (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Columbia Academic Commons (Columbia University)
Funders
  • Omron Healthcare
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (P01 HL47540, R24-HL76857, R24HL076857, P01HL047540)
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
home blood pressure monitoring, oscillometric blood pressure measurement, measurement interval, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, hypertension, medication adherence, self-monitoring
MeSH terms
Aged, Automation, Blood Pressure, Female, Humans, Hypertension, Male, Middle Aged, Oscillometry, Patient Compliance, Time Factors, Cross-Over Studies, 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.

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