Cited by 48Blood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesCardiovascular Health and Disease PreventionHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control

Heterogeneity of Prognostic Studies of 24-Hour Blood Pressure Variability: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Open access
Taylor, Kathryn S., Heneghan, Carl J., Stevens, Richard J., Adams, Emily C., Nunan, David, Ward, Alison·2015·PLOS ONE

Abstract

In addition to mean blood pressure, blood pressure variability is hypothesized to have important prognostic value in evaluating cardiovascular risk. We aimed to assess the prognostic value of blood pressure variability within 24 hours. Using MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library to April 2013, we conducted a systematic review of prospective studies of adults, with at least one year follow-up and any day, night or 24-hour blood pressure variability measure as a predictor of one or more of the following outcomes: all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, all cardiovascular events, stroke and coronary heart disease. We examined how blood pressure variability is defined and how its prognostic use is reported. We analysed relative risks adjusted for covariates including the appropriate mean blood pressure and considered the potential for meta-analysis. Our analysis of methods included 24 studies and analysis of predictions included 16 studies. There were 36 different measures of blood pressure variability and 13 definitions of night- and day-time periods. Median follow-up was 5.5 years (interquartile range 4.2-7.0). Comparing measures of dispersion, coefficient of variation was less well researched than standard deviation. Night dipping based on percentage change was the most researched measure and the only measure for which data could be meaningfully pooled. Night dipping or lower night-time blood pressure was associated with lower risk of cardiovascular events. The interpretation and use in clinical practice of 24-hour blood pressure variability, as an important prognostic indicator of cardiovascular events, is hampered by insufficient evidence and divergent methodologies. We recommend greater standardisation of methods.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0126375

Cites

43 of 43 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?

  • Blood pressure is usually lower in sleep than in wakefulness and has a characteristic surge after awakening.

    “BP is usually lower in sleep than in wakefulness and has a characteristic surge after awakening, drawing parallels with the daily pattern of adverse CV events (refs.94-97 and Figure 1).”

    From Role of the circadian system in cardiovascular disease (2018) · cites this paper as [94]

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [22]Heneghan C, Badenock D. Evidence-based medicine toolkit, 2nd ed. Oxford Blackwell Publishing; 2006.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Taylor, K. S., Heneghan, C. J., Stevens, R. J., Adams, E. C., Nunan, D., & Ward, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
Taylor, Kathryn S.
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2015-05-18
Volume
10
Issue
5
Pages
e0126375
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1555575787
Cited by
48
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 1
FWCI
0.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (RP-PG-0407-10347)
  • University of Oxford
  • Programme Grants for Applied Research
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
Keywords
24-hour blood pressure variability, prognostic value, cardiovascular risk, cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, stroke, coronary artery disease, coefficient of variation, standard deviation, methodological heterogeneity
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Analysis of Variance, Blood Pressure, Circadian Rhythm, Female, Humans, Hypertension, Male, Middle Aged, Photoperiod

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