Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,676

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

Ambulatory blood pressure. An independent predictor of prognosis in essential hypertension.

Verdecchia, P, Porcellati, C, Schillaci, G, Borgioni, C, Ciucci, A, Battistelli, M, Guerrieri, M, Gatteschi, C, Zampi, I, Santucci, A, Santucci, C, Reboldi, G·1994·Hypertension
DOI 10.1161/01.hyp.24.6.793
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

To determine the prognostic significance of ambulatory blood pressure, we prospectively followed for up to 7.5 years (mean, 3.2) 1187 subjects with essential hypertension and 205 healthy normotensive control subjects who had baseline off-therapy 24-hour noninvasive ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Prevalence of white coat hypertension, defined by an average daytime ambulatory blood pressure lower than 131/86 mm Hg in women and 136/87 mm Hg in men in clinically hypertensive subjects, was 19.2%. Cardiovascular morbidity, expressed as the number of combined fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events per 100 patient-years, was 0.47 in the normotensive group, 0.49 in the white coat hypertension group, 1.79 in dippers with ambulatory hypertension, and 4.99 in nondippers with ambulatory hypertension. After adjustment for traditional risk markers for cardiovascular disease, morbidity did not differ between the normotensive and white coat hypertension groups (P = .83). Compared with the white coat hypertension group, cardiovascular morbidity increased in ambulatory hypertension in dippers (relative risk, 3.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.13 to 12.5), with a further increase of morbidity in nondippers (relative risk, 6.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.92 to 20.32). After adjustment for age, sex, diabetes, and echocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy (relative risk versus subjects with normal left ventricular mass, 1.82; 95% confidence interval, 1.02 to 3.22), cardiovascular morbidity in ambulatory hypertension was higher (P = .0002) in nondippers than in dippers in women (relative risk, 6.79; 95% confidence interval, 2.45 to 18.82) but not in men (P = .91). Our findings suggest that ambulatory blood pressures stratifies cardiovascular risk in essential hypertension independent of clinic blood pressure and other traditional risk markers including echocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

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 · 10.1161/01.hyp.24.6.793

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

Metadata

Authors
Verdecchia, P., Porcellati, C., Schillaci, G., Borgioni, C., Ciucci, A., Battistelli, M., Guerrieri, M., Gatteschi, C., Zampi, I., Santucci, A., Santucci, C., & Reboldi, G.
Venue
Hypertension
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
1994-12
Volume
24
Issue
6
Pages
793-801
ISSN
  • 0194-911X (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4563
DOI
10.1161/01.hyp.24.6.793
OpenAlex
W2116627666
Cited by
1,676
References
4
FWCI
32.65
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

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.