Dataset Information

Relative effectiveness of clinic and home blood pressure monitoring compared with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in diagnosis of hypertension: systematic review.

ABSTRACT: To determine the relative accuracy of clinic measurements and home blood pressure monitoring compared with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring as a reference standard for the diagnosis of hypertension.Systematic review with meta-analysis with hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic models. Methodological quality was appraised, including evidence of validation of blood pressure measurement equipment.Medline (from 1966), Embase (from 1980), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, DARE, Medion, ARIF, and TRIP up to May 2010. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Eligible studies examined diagnosis of hypertension in adults of all ages using home and/or clinic blood pressure measurement compared with those made using ambulatory monitoring that clearly defined thresholds to diagnose hypertension.The 20 eligible studies used various thresholds for the diagnosis of hypertension, and only seven studies (clinic) and three studies (home) could be directly compared with ambulatory monitoring. Compared with ambulatory monitoring thresholds of 135/85 mm Hg, clinic measurements over 140/90 mm Hg had mean sensitivity and specificity of 74.6% (95% confidence interval 60.7% to 84.8%) and 74.6% (47.9% to 90.4%), respectively, whereas home measurements over 135/85 mm Hg had mean sensitivity and specificity of 85.7% (78.0% to 91.0%) and 62.4% (48.0% to 75.0%).Neither clinic nor home measurement had sufficient sensitivity or specificity to be recommended as a single diagnostic test. If ambulatory monitoring is taken as the reference standard, then treatment decisions based on clinic or home blood pressure alone might result in substantial overdiagnosis. Ambulatory monitoring before the start of lifelong drug treatment might lead to more appropriate targeting of treatment, particularly around the diagnostic threshold.

SUBMITTER: Hodgkinson J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3122300 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Relative effectiveness of clinic and home blood pressure monitoring compared with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in diagnosis of hypertension: systematic review.

Hodgkinson J J Mant J J Martin U U Guo B B Hobbs F D R FD Deeks J J JJ Heneghan C C Roberts N N McManus R J RJ

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20110624

<h4>Objective</h4>To determine the relative accuracy of clinic measurements and home blood pressure monitoring compared with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring as a reference standard for the diagnosis of hypertension.<h4>Design</h4>Systematic review with meta-analysis with hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic models. Methodological quality was appraised, including evidence of validation of blood pressure measurement equipment.<h4>Data sources</h4>Medline (from 1966), Embase ...[more]

PMID: 21705406

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe US Preventive Services Task Force recommends measuring blood pressure (BP) outside of clinic/office settings. While various options are available, including home devices, BP kiosks, and 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM), understanding patient acceptability and adherence is a critical factor for implementation.ObjectiveTo compare the acceptability and adherence of clinic, home, kiosk, and ABPM measurement.DesignComparative diagnostic accuracy study which randomized adults to one of three BP measurement arms: clinic, home, and kiosk. ABPM was conducted on all participants.ParticipantsAdults (18-85 years) receiving care at 12 Kaiser Permanente Washington primary care clinics (Washington State, USA) with a high BP (≥ 138 mmHg systolic or ≥ 88 mmHg diastolic) in the electronic health record with no hypertension diagnosis and on no hypertensive medications and with high BP at a research screening visit.MeasuresPatient acceptability was measured using a validated survey which was used to calculate an overall acceptability score (range 1-7) at baseline, after completing their assigned BP measurement intervention, and after completing ABPM. Adherence was defined based on the pre-specified number of BP measurements completed.Key resultsFive hundred ten participants were randomized (mean age 59 years), with mean BP of 150/88. Overall acceptability score was highest (i.e. most acceptable) for Home BP (mean 6.2, SD 0.7) and lowest (least acceptable) for ABPM (mean 5.0, SD 1.0); scores were intermediate for Clinic (5.5, SD 1.1) and Kiosk (5.4, SD 1.0). Adherence was higher for Home (154/170, 90.6%) and Clinic (150/172, 87.2%) than for Kiosk (114/168, 67.9%)). The majority of participants (467/510, 91.6%) were adherent to ABPM.ConclusionsParticipants found home BP measurement most acceptable followed by clinic, BP kiosks, and ABPM. Our findings, coupled with recent evidence regarding the accuracy of home BP measurement, further support the routine use of home-based BP measurement in primary care practice in the US.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03130257 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03130257.

Project description:ObjectivesAmbulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) has greater predictive value than office blood pressure (BP) with respect to hypertension-related target-organ damage and morbidity. ABPM in a subset of 80 patients from the Exforge Target Achievement trial (N=728) was used to compare the efficacy of intensive-treatment and moderate-treatment regimens of amlodipine/valsartan, and to determine whether treatment differences could be better assessed with ABPM than with office or home BP. Home BP was measured on the morning of clinic visits to minimize differences that timing might have on home versus office BP measures.MethodsA 12-week randomized, double-blind study in which hypertensive patients earlier uncontrolled (mean sitting systolic BP≥150 and <200 mmHg) on angiotensin receptor blocker monotherapy (other than valsartan) after 28 days or more (N=728) were randomized to amlodipine/valsartan treatment [10/320 mg (intensive) or 5/160 mg (moderate)]. Treatment-naive patients (in previous 28 days) or patients who failed on a nonangiotensin receptor blocker agent underwent a 28-day run-in period with a 20-mg or 40-mg dose of olmesartan, respectively.ResultsSignificantly greater 24-h ABP reductions from baseline to week 4 (primary time point) were observed with intensive versus moderate treatment (least-square mean systolic/diastolic BP reduction of -16.2/-10.1 vs. -9.5/-6.5 mmHg; P=0.0024/P=0.010 for least-square mean difference). Similarly, a significantly greater proportion of patients receiving an intensive treatment achieved ambulatory BP goal (<130/80 mmHg) at week 4 than did those receiving a moderate treatment (P=0.040). Treatment-group differences did not reach statistical significance for these end points when measured by office and home BP.ConclusionIn this first randomized trial evaluating the effects of intensive versus moderate dosing of the combination of amlodipine/valsartan, our data suggest that ABPM was a better method for assessing between-treatment differences than clinic or home BP recordings, although measurement of home BP as a single recording was a limitation of our trial.

Dataset Information

Relative effectiveness of clinic and home blood pressure monitoring compared with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in diagnosis of hypertension: systematic review.

Publications

Relative effectiveness of clinic and home blood pressure monitoring compared with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in diagnosis of hypertension: systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets