59
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    2
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective 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.

          Design 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.

          Data sources 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.

          Results 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%).

          Conclusions 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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references46

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Diagnostic tests 4: likelihood ratios.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            2003 World Health Organization (WHO)/International Society of Hypertension (ISH) statement on management of hypertension.

            Hypertension is estimated to cause 4.5% of current global disease burden and is as prevalent in many developing countries, as in the developed world. Blood pressure-induced cardiovascular risk rises continuously across the whole blood pressure range. Countries vary widely in capacity for management of hypertension, but worldwide the majority of diagnosed hypertensives are inadequately controlled. This statement addresses the ascertainment of overall cardiovascular risk to establish thresholds for initiation and goals of treatment, appropriate treatment strategies for non-drug and drug therapies, and cost-effectiveness of treatment. Since publication of the WHO/ISH Guidelines for the Management of Hypertension in 1999, more evidence has become available to support a systolic blood pressure threshold of 140 mmHg for even 'low-risk' patients. In high-risk patients there is evidence for lower thresholds. Lifestyle modification is recommended for all individuals. There is evidence that specific agents have benefits for patients with particular compelling indications, and that monotherapy is inadequate for the majority of patients. For patients without a compelling indication for a particular drug class, on the basis of comparative trial data, availability, and cost, a low dose of diuretic should be considered for initiation of therapy. In most places a thiazide diuretic is the cheapest option and thus most cost effective, but for compelling indications where other classes provide additional benefits, even if more expensive, they may be more cost effective. In high-risk patients who attain large benefits from treatment, expensive drugs may be cost effective, but in low-risk patients treatment may not be cost-effective unless the drugs are cheap.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              2007 Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension: The Task Force for the Management of Arterial Hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC).

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: research fellow
                Role: professor
                Role: clinical reader in clinical pharmacology
                Role: research fellow
                Role: professor
                Role: professor
                Role: reader in evidence based medicine
                Role: information specialist
                Role: professor
                Journal
                BMJ
                bmj
                BMJ : British Medical Journal
                BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
                0959-8138
                1468-5833
                2011
                2011
                24 June 2011
                : 342
                : d3621
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Primary Care Clinical Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2PP
                [2 ]General Practice and Primary Care Research Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0SR
                [3 ]School of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston
                [4 ]Public Health, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston
                [5 ]Department of Primary Health Care, University of Oxford, Headington, Oxford OX3 7LF
                [6 ]Bodleian Health Care Libraries, Knowledge Centre, ORC Medical Research Building, Oxford OX3 7DQ
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: R J McManus r.j.mcmanus@ 123456bham.ac.uk
                Article
                hodj840595
                10.1136/bmj.d3621
                3122300
                21705406
                3e2cea79-9366-4f93-8d2a-ebe3ef0dc738
                © Hodgkinson et al 2011

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode.

                History
                : 17 April 2011
                Categories
                Research
                Hypertension
                Clinical Diagnostic Tests
                Internet

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article