Publication: Diagnostic performance of clinic and home blood pressure measurements compared with ambulatory blood pressure: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Issued Date
2020-12-01
Resource Type
ISSN
14712261
Other identifier(s)
2-s2.0-85096375155
Rights
Mahidol University
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders. Vol.20, No.1 (2020)
Suggested Citation
Auttakiat Karnjanapiboonwong, Thunyarat Anothaisintawee, Usa Chaikledkaew, Charungthai Dejthevaporn, John Attia, Ammarin Thakkinstian Diagnostic performance of clinic and home blood pressure measurements compared with ambulatory blood pressure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cardiovascular Disorders. Vol.20, No.1 (2020). doi:10.1186/s12872-020-01736-2 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/60538
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Thesis
Title
Diagnostic performance of clinic and home blood pressure measurements compared with ambulatory blood pressure: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract
© 2020, The Author(s). Background: Clinic blood pressure measurement (CBPM) is currently the most commonly used form of screening for hypertension, however it might have a problem detecting white coat hypertension (WCHT) and masked hypertension (MHT). Home blood pressure measurement (HBPM) may be an alternative, but its diagnostic performance is inconclusive relative to CBPM. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to estimate the performance of CBPM and HBPM compared with ambulatory blood pressure measurement(ABPM) and to pool prevalence of WCHT and MHT. Methods: Medline, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform databases were searched up to 23rd January 2020. Studies having diagnostic tests as CBPM or HBPM with reference standard as ABPM, reporting sensitivity and specificity of both tests and/or proportion of WCHT or MHT were eligible. Diagnostic performance of CBPM and HBPM were pooled using bivariate mixed-effect regression model. Random effect model was applied to pool prevalence of WCHT and MHT. Results: Fifty-eight studies were eligible. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of CBPM, when using 24-h ABPM as the reference standard, were 74% (95% CI: 65–82%), 79% (95% CI: 69%, 87%), and 11.11 (95% CI: 6.82, 14.20), respectively. Pooled prevalence of WCHT and MHT were 0.24 (95% CI 0.19, 0.29) and 0.29 (95% CI 0.20, 0.38). Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and DOR of HBPM were 71% (95% CI 61%, 80%), 82% (95% CI 77%, 87%), and 11.60 (95% CI 8.98, 15.13), respectively. Conclusions: Diagnostic performances of HBPM were slightly higher than CBPM. However, the prevalence of MHT was high in negative CBPM and some persons with normal HBPM had elevated BP from 24-h ABPM. Therefore, ABPM is still necessary for confirming the diagnosis of HT.