Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 380

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Diagnostic and Predictive Accuracy of Blood Pressure Screening Methods With Consideration of Rescreening Intervals: A Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force

Piper, Margaret A., Evans, Corinne V., Burda, Brittany U., Margolis, Karen L., O'Connor, Elizabeth, Whitlock, Evelyn P.·2015·Annals of Internal Medicine
DOI 10.7326/m14-1539
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Elevated blood pressure (BP) is the largest contributing risk factor to all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. PURPOSE: To update a systematic review on the benefits and harms of screening for high BP in adults and to summarize evidence on rescreening intervals and diagnostic and predictive accuracy of different BP methods for cardiovascular events. DATA SOURCES: Selected databases searched through 24 February 2014. STUDY SELECTION: Fair- and good-quality trials and diagnostic accuracy and cohort studies conducted in adults and published in English. DATA EXTRACTION: One investigator abstracted data, and a second checked for accuracy. Study quality was dual-reviewed. DATA SYNTHESIS: Ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) predicted long-term cardiovascular outcomes independently of office BP (hazard ratio range, 1.28 to 1.40, in 11 studies). Across 27 studies, 35% to 95% of persons with an elevated BP at screening remained hypertensive after nonoffice confirmatory testing. Cardiovascular outcomes in persons who were normotensive after confirmatory testing (isolated clinic hypertension) were similar to outcomes in those who were normotensive at screening. In 40 studies, hypertension incidence after rescreening varied considerably at each yearly interval up to 6 years. Intrastudy comparisons showed at least 2-fold higher incidence in older adults, those with high-normal BP, overweight and obese persons, and African Americans. LIMITATION: Few diagnostic accuracy studies of office BP methods and protocols in untreated adults. CONCLUSION: Evidence supports ABPM as the reference standard for confirming elevated office BP screening results to avoid misdiagnosis and overtreatment of persons with isolated clinic hypertension. Persons with BP in the high-normal range, older persons, those with an above-normal body mass index, and African Americans are at higher risk for hypertension on rescreening within 6 years than are persons without these risk factors. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

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 · 10.7326/m14-1539

Cites

9 of 9 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 9 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Piper, M. A., Evans, C. V., Burda, B. U., Margolis, K. L., O'Connor, E., & Whitlock, E. P.
Venue
Annals of Internal Medicine
Publisher
American College of Physicians
Published
2015-02-03
Volume
162
Issue
3
Pages
192-204
ISSN
  • 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
  • 1539-3704
DOI
10.7326/m14-1539
OpenAlex
W2118104235
Cited by
380
References
9
FWCI
6.59
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.