JACC
HOME SUBSCRIPTIONS CURRENT ISSUE PAST ISSUES CARDIOSOURCE SEARCH HELP FEEDBACK
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Am Coll Cardiol, 2005; 46:743-751, doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2005.05.058
© 2005 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (17)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Verberk, W. J.
Right arrow Articles by de Leeuw, P. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Verberk, W. J.
Right arrow Articles by de Leeuw, P. W.

Home Blood Pressure Measurement

A Systematic Review

Willem J. Verberk, MSc*, Abraham A. Kroon, MD, PhD*, Alfons G.H. Kessels, MD, MSc{dagger} and Peter W. de Leeuw, MD, PhD*,*

* Department of Medicine, University Hospital Maastricht and Cardiovascular Research Institute Maastricht (CARIM), Maastricht, the Netherlands
{dagger} Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Technology Assessment, University Hospital Maastricht, Maastricht, the Netherlands



View larger version (11K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 1 Differences between systolic (left) and diastolic (right) office blood pressure measurement (OBPM) and home blood pressure measurement (HBPM) as a function of age in patients without antihypertensive treatment. Results were derived from 18 studies with a total of 6,979 subjects (Table 3). The relationship was statistically significant for systolic pressure only (p = 0.036). The regression line was calculated for equal proportions of men and women, and studies were weighted for the number of subjects.

 


View larger version (14K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 2 Bland-Altman plots for the differences between systolic office blood pressure measurement (OBPM) and home blood pressure measurement (HBPM) as a function of the average of OBPM and HBPM in patients without (left) or with (right) antihypertensive treatment. Results were derived from the studies mentioned in Tables 3 and 4. The relationship was statistically significant for untreated subjects only (p = 0.007). Studies were weighted for the number of subjects.

 


View larger version (14K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 3 Differences between pretreatment and treatment pressures for both office blood pressure measurement (OBPM) and home blood pressure measurement (HBPM) as derived from eight studies with a total of 3,256 subjects (Table 5). Results for systolic (closed symbols, S) and diastolic (open symbols, D) blood pressure are presented as the mean difference with the 95% confidence interval; OBPM differences were significantly greater than HBPM differences for both systolic and diastolic blood pressure (p < 0.001).

 





HOME SUBSCRIPTIONS CURRENT ISSUE PAST ISSUES CARDIOSOURCE SEARCH HELP FEEDBACK
Copyright © 2005 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.