CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 294Blood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesNon-Invasive Vital Sign MonitoringCardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention

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

Call to Action on Use and Reimbursement for Home Blood Pressure Monitoring: Executive Summary: A Joint Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association, American Society of Hypertension, and Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association

Open access
Pickering, Thomas G., Miller, Nancy Houston, Ogedegbe, Gbenga, Krakoff, Lawrence R., Artinian, Nancy T., Goff, David·2008·Hypertension
DOI 10.1161/hypertensionaha.107.189011
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) overcomes many of the limitations of traditional office blood pressure (BP) measurement and is both cheaper and easier to perform than ambulatory BP monitoring. Monitors that use the oscillometric method are currently available that are accurate, reliable, easy to use, and relatively inexpensive. An increasing number of patients are using them regularly to check their BP at home, but although this has been endorsed by national and international guidelines, detailed recommendations for their use have been lacking. There is a rapidly growing literature showing that measurements taken by patients at home are often lower than readings taken in the office and closer to the average BP recorded by 24-hour ambulatory monitors, which is the BP that best predicts cardiovascular risk. Because of the larger numbers of readings that can be taken by HBPM than in the office and the elimination of the white-coat effect (the increase of BP during an office visit), home readings are more reproducible than office readings and show better correlations with measures of target organ damage. In addition, prospective studies that have used multiple home readings to express the true BP have found that home BP predicts risk better than office BP (class IIa; level of evidence A). This call-to-action article makes the following recommendations: (1) It is recommended that HBPM should become a routine component of BP measurement in the majority of patients with known or suspected hypertension; (2) Patients should be advised to purchase oscillometric monitors that measure BP on the upper arm with an appropriate cuff size and that have been shown to be accurate according to standard international protocols. They should be shown how to use them by their healthcare providers; (3) Two to 3 readings should be taken while the subject is resting in the seated position, both in the morning and at night, over a period of 1 week. A total of ≥12 readings are recommended for making clinical decisions; (4) HBPM is indicated in patients with newly diagnosed or suspected hypertension, in whom it may distinguish between white-coat and sustained hypertension. If the results are equivocal, ambulatory BP monitoring may help to establish the diagnosis; (5) In patients with prehypertension, HBPM may be useful for detecting masked hypertension; (6) HBPM is recommended for evaluating the response to any type of antihypertensive treatment and may improve adherence; (7) The target HBPM goal for treatment is <135/85 mm Hg or <130/80 mm Hg in high-risk patients; (8) HBPM is useful in the elderly, in whom both BP variability and the white-coat effect are increased; (9) HBPM is of value in patients with diabetes, in whom tight BP control is of paramount importance; (10) Other populations in whom HBPM may be beneficial include pregnant women, children, and patients with kidney disease; and (11) HBPM has the potential to improve the quality of care while reducing costs and should be reimbursed. (Hypertension. 2008;52:1-9.)

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/hypertensionaha.107.189011

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Pickering, T. G., Miller, N. H., Ogedegbe, G., Krakoff, L. R., Artinian, N. T., & Goff, D.
ORCID
Venue
Hypertension
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2008-07
Volume
52
Issue
1
Pages
1-9
ISSN
  • 0194-911X (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4563
DOI
10.1161/hypertensionaha.107.189011
OpenAlex
W2562646453
Cited by
294
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 15
FWCI
26.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Hypertension (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • American Heart Association
  • Pfizer
  • Wayne State University
  • Wake Forest University
  • Omron Healthcare
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
  • National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities
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 monitor, hypertension diagnosis, white coat effect, masked hypertension, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, antihypertensive treatment response, prehypertension, antihypertensive treatment adherence, reimbursement policy, health technology assessment, cardiovascular risk, target organ damage, antihypertensive drug costs, elderly patients

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