Importance听
Hypertension is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease and can be modified through lifestyle and pharmacological interventions to reduce cardiovascular events and mortality.
Objective听
To systematically review the benefits and harms of screening and confirmatory blood pressure measurements in adults, to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.
Data Sources听
MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Collaboration Central Registry of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL; surveillance through March 26, 2021.
Study Selection听
Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized controlled intervention studies for effectiveness of screening; accuracy studies for screening and confirmatory measurements (ambulatory blood pressure monitoring as the reference standard); RCTs and nonrandomized controlled intervention studies and observational studies for harms of screening and confirmation.
Data Extraction and Synthesis听
Independent critical appraisal and data abstraction; meta-analyses and qualitative syntheses.
Main Outcomes and Measures听
Mortality; cardiovascular events; quality of life; sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values; harms of screening.
Results听
A total of 52 studies (N鈥�=鈥�215鈥�534) were identified in this systematic review. One cluster RCT (n鈥�=鈥�140鈥�642) of a multicomponent intervention including hypertension screening reported fewer annual cardiovascular-related hospital admissions for cardiovascular disease in the intervention group compared with the control group (difference, 3.02 per 1000 people; rate ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.86-0.97]). Meta-analysis of 15 studies (n鈥�=鈥�11鈥�309) of initial office-based blood pressure screening showed a pooled sensitivity of 0.54 (95% CI, 0.37-0.70) and specificity of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.84-0.95), with considerable clinical and statistical heterogeneity. Eighteen studies (n鈥�=鈥�57鈥�128) of various confirmatory blood pressure measurement modalities were heterogeneous. Meta-analysis of 8 office-based confirmation studies (n鈥�=鈥�53鈥�183) showed a pooled sensitivity of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.68-0.88) and specificity of 0.55 (95% CI, 0.42-0.66). Meta-analysis of 4 home-based confirmation studies (n鈥�=鈥�1001) showed a pooled sensitivity of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.76-0.90) and a specificity of 0.60 (95% CI, 0.48-0.71). Thirteen studies (n鈥�=鈥�5150) suggested that screening was associated with no decrement in quality of life or psychological distress; evidence on absenteeism was mixed. Ambulatory blood pressure measurement was associated with temporary sleep disturbance and bruising.
Conclusions and Relevance听
Screening using office-based blood pressure measurement had major accuracy limitations, including misdiagnosis; however, direct harms of measurement were minimal. Research is needed to determine optimal screening and confirmatory algorithms for clinical practice.
Hypertension is highly prevalent and one of the most important risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD).1-3 Blood pressure can be modified with lifestyle interventions,4-6 and good-quality randomized clinical trials (RCTs) demonstrate the effectiveness of antihypertensive pharmacological treatments to reduce CVD and total mortality.7,8 While office-based screening for hypertension in adults has been standard of care in the US for decades,9 office-based methods may misclassify individuals (white coat or masked hypertension). Contemporary research in blood pressure measurement has considered the potential benefits of out-of-office or novel office-based measurement modalities.
The aim of this updated systematic review was to inform an update of the 2015 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for hypertension in adults (A recommendation).10 This systematic review addressed the benefits and harms of screening for hypertension in adults, test accuracy of initial office-based screening measurements, and methods of confirmatory blood pressure measurement in those who initially screen positive.
This review addressed 4 key questions (KQs) as shown in Figure 1. Methodological details including study selection, a list of excluded studies, additional data analysis methods, and sensitivity analyses are available in the full evidence report.11
Data Sources and Searches
MEDLINE, PubMed (publisher supplied records), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL were searched through August 17, 2019, to identify literature published after the previous review for the USPSTF12 (eMethods in the Supplement). The scope of this update differs from that of the 2015 review12 in that this review analyzed specificity and sensitivity of hypertension screening and confirmation, required ambulatory blood pressure measurement as the reference standard, included patients with diabetes, and did not address prognosis associated with various blood pressure measurement modalities. All included studies in the prior review and a subset of previously excluded studies were also evaluated, as well as reference lists of other systematic reviews and individual patient鈥揹ata meta-analyses.13-15 ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for relevant ongoing trials. Active surveillance was conducted through March 26, 2021, via article alerts and targeted journal searches to identify major studies that might affect the conclusions or understanding of the evidence. No new studies were identified.
Investigators reviewed 21鈥�741 unique citations and 544 full-text articles against a priori eligibility criteria (Figure 2; eTable 1 in the Supplement). All studies were required to enroll untreated adults or stratify results by treatment status and to have been conducted in countries rated as 鈥渧ery high鈥� on the 2015 Human Development Index.16 Eligible populations for KQ2 (initial screening) were unselected based on blood pressure, whereas KQ3 populations (confirmatory screening) were preselected for having at least 1 elevated blood pressure measurement identified by clinic-based screening.
For KQ1 (screening), RCTs and nonrandomized controlled intervention studies were included that reported changes in health outcomes as a result of screening for hypertension compared with no screening. Eligible health outcomes were all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, cardiovascular disease events, symptomatic peripheral artery disease, vascular dementia, end-stage renal disease, and quality of life.
For KQs 2 and 3 (test accuracy), test accuracy studies comparing an initial office blood pressure measurement (OBPM) (KQ2) or confirmatory measurement modality (KQ3) with any ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) reference standard were included. Attended and unattended automated office-based blood pressure (AOBP) measurements were eligible OBPM subtypes considered for all questions. The selection of the ABPM reference standard was based on a 2015 systematic review conducted for the USPSTF that concluded that ABPM was associated with cardiovascular events independently of OBPM and thus could serve as a reference standard.12 Other investigators have confirmed this finding.17
Confirmatory methods examined in KQ3 included repeated OBPM, self-OBPM (measurement performed by a patient in the office setting), home blood pressure measurement (HBPM), or kiosk. For KQ2a and KQ3a, included studies reported accuracy of protocol variations compared with an ABPM reference standard (eg, more vs fewer OBPM measures, more vs fewer days of HBPM). Studies needed to report sensitivity and specificity or provide enough data to calculate these values.
For KQ4 (harms), RCTs, nonrandomized controlled intervention studies, and cohort studies were included for the outcomes of quality of life, psychological effects of labeling, and absenteeism. Cross-sectional studies were additionally included for the outcome of ABPM tolerability.
Data Extraction and Quality Assessment
Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality of eligible studies. Disagreements were resolved by consensus and, if needed, consultation with a third reviewer. Each study was assigned a quality rating of 鈥済ood,鈥� 鈥渇air,鈥� or 鈥減oor,鈥� according to the USPSTF鈥檚 study design鈥搒pecific criteria (eTable 2 in the Supplement).18 Studies rated poor quality because of serious methodological shortcomings were excluded.18 One reviewer abstracted descriptive and outcome data from each included study into standardized evidence tables; a second checked for accuracy and completeness.
Data Synthesis and Analysis
Results for KQ1 and KQ4 were analyzed qualitatively because of the small number of included studies reporting individual outcomes.
For test accuracy studies (KQ2 and KQ3), the primary outcomes of interest were sensitivity and specificity. For quantitative pooling, only studies that used both systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) in their definition of hypertension were included because of relevance to current clinical practice. Because there is a lack of consensus on thresholds recommended by guidelines, thresholds were selected based on values most commonly reported in primary studies: 140/90 mm Hg for OBPM, 135/85 mm Hg for daytime ABPM, 130/80 for 24-hour ABPM, and 135/85 mm Hg for HBPM. Additional results for less commonly reported thresholds are available in the full evidence report.11 In quantitative analysis of KQ2 (initial screening), only studies measuring OBPM at a single visit were included; 2 additional studies measuring blood pressure at multiple visits were included in a sensitivity analysis.19,20 Results for KQ3 (confirmatory measurement) were stratified by the type of confirmatory measure (repeat OBPM, HBPM, self-OBPM, AOBP, and kiosk). Data were sufficient for quantitative syntheses for OBPM and HBPM modalities only; other modalities were qualitatively synthesized. For all pooled analyses, a bivariate model was used to model sensitivity and specificity simultaneously, thus accounting for the correlation between these variables.
Stata version 15.1 (StataCorp) was used for all analyses. All significance testing was 2-sided, and results were considered statistically significant if the P value was .05 or less.
The aggregate strength of evidence was assessed for each KQ using the approach described in the Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews, based on the number, quality, and size of studies and the consistency and precision of results between studies.21
In total, 52 studies reported in 81 articles were included (Figure 2).19,20,22-100 For all KQs, additional descriptive and outcome data are available in the full report.
Key Question 1. Does screening for hypertension in adults improve health outcomes?
There were no population-based trials comparing hypertension screening with no screening. One good-quality community-based cluster RCT (n鈥�=鈥�140鈥�642) conducted in Canada examined the effectiveness of a multicomponent CVD health promotion program on CVD health outcomes when hypertension screening was the primary intervention.47 The community clusters received either the Cardiovascular Health Awareness Program (CHAP) intervention or no intervention. In the CHAP communities, residents 65 years and older were invited to participate in community pharmacy-based blood pressure screenings using an automated instrument and complete a standardized risk profile. Participants received their risk profile, risk-specific educational materials, and local community resource information. At 1-year follow-up, the intervention communities had a reduction in the number of hospital admissions per 1000 for composite events (rate ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.86-0.97]). There were 3.02 fewer annual hospital admissions for CVD per 1000 persons in the intervention group compared with the control group (intervention group, 鈥�2.25 per 1000 persons; control group, 0.77 per 1000 persons). There were no statistically significant differences in all-cause mortality among admitted residents (rate ratio, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.92-1.03]; intervention group, 鈥�1.47 per 1000 persons; control group, 1.42 per 1000 persons) or in-hospital cardiovascular mortality (rate ratio, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.73-1.01]; intervention group, 鈥�0.47 per 1000 persons; control group, 0.2 per 1000 persons).
Key Question 2. What is the accuracy of OBPM during a single encounter as initial screening for hypertension compared with the reference standard (ABPM)?
Twenty fair- to good-quality studies (n鈥�=鈥�12鈥�614) examined the test accuracy of OBPM for initial screening for hypertension compared with ABPM (eTable 3 in the Supplement).19,20,23,26,29,32,35-38,42,43,45,46,49,54-56,61-63,67,68,70,75-78,80,86,87,95-97 Participants in the studies were primarily recruited from community-based samples. Only 5 were conducted in the US. Overall, participants represented a wide range of demographic and clinical characteristics, including a large range of blood pressures. The prevalence of hypertension as defined by ABPM in the included studies reflected population heterogeneity and ranged from 12.6%54 to 88.9%.70
Index test measurement protocols were heterogeneous and deviated somewhat from current commonly performed protocols in US practice. Studies mostly used mercury sphygmomanometers with blood pressure measured by the manual auscultatory method, had participants rest for 5 minutes prior to measurement, and used the mean of multiple measurements (up to 9 measurements) at a single sitting (eTable 4 in the Supplement). Most other protocol characteristics were sparsely or variably reported. Studies most commonly used an office blood pressure of greater than 140/90 mm Hg or of 140/90 mm Hg or greater as the diagnostic threshold for the index test (17/20 studies).19,20,23,32,35,38,46,49,54,55,67,70,75,80,87,95,96 Several studies additionally reported accuracy for other thresholds,35,37,54,70,80 and 2 studies used SBP-alone or DBP-alone thresholds.36,78 Only 1 study reported accuracy for an OBPM threshold of 130/80 mm Hg or greater,70 the diagnostic threshold recommended in the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline.101 While all but 1 study78 reported that 24-hour ABPM was conducted, most (13) studies used daytime ABPM as a reference standard (eTable 4 in the Supplement). Only 1 study had low risk of bias for all domains and was rated as good quality.55 All other studies were rated fair quality and many had at least medium risk of bias for patient selection, conduct of the index test, and conduct of the reference test.
Meta-analysis of 15 studies using SBP/DBP thresholds and measuring blood pressure at a single visit (n鈥�=鈥�11鈥�309) showed a pooled sensitivity of 0.54 (95% CI, 0.37-0.70) and pooled specificity of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.84-0.95) (Figure 3; eTable 5 in the Supplement). Substantial clinical and methodologic heterogeneity among the included studies contributed to considerable statistical heterogeneity not explained by any single participant or test characteristic. Among this set of studies, positive predictive values and negative predictive values ranged widely, from 0.35 to 0.97 and from 0.25 to 0.97, respectively. False-positive and false-negative rates likewise ranged widely (false-positive rate range, 0%-30%; false-negative rate range, 8%-100%). A sensitivity analysis adding 2 studies measuring blood pressure at multiple visits19,20 rendered the same point estimate but with slightly narrower confidence intervals (sensitivity, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.37-0.68]; specificity, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.85-0.95]).
Three additional studies (n鈥�=鈥�1268) could not be included in the meta-analysis (eTable 5 in the Supplement). These included 1 study of attended AOBP35 with insufficient reporting for pooling showing sensitivity consistent with the pooled analysis but lower specificity (0.74 [95% CI, 0.66-0.82]) and 2 studies that used SBP-only or DBP-only thresholds.36,78
Four studies (n鈥�=鈥�1467) reported results for multiple OBPM thresholds (eTable 5 in the Supplement).37,54,78,80 These studies consistently showed increased sensitivity and decreased specificity as thresholds are lowered. One study reported accuracy for an OPBM threshold of 130/80 mm Hg or greater in addition to 140/90 mm Hg or greater but also lowered the reference standard threshold; therefore, accuracy between the 2 OBPM thresholds cannot be directly compared.70 The resulting sensitivity for the OPBM threshold of 130/80 mm Hg or greater compared with the 130/80 mm Hg or greater daytime ABPM reference standard was 0.56 (95% CI, 0.50-0.61), with specificity of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.83-0.93).
Key Question 2a. What screening protocol characteristics define the best test accuracy?
Substantial clinical and methodological heterogeneity among the 20 included KQ2 studies precluded analysis of protocol differences across studies as explanations for differences in accuracy. Four of the 20 included KQ2 studies reported accuracy for within-study comparisons of protocol characteristics.35,54,78,80 No consistent pattern of test accuracy was identified related to the number of measures and visits used for screening.
Key Question 3. What is the accuracy of confirmatory blood pressure measurement in adults who initially screen positive for hypertension compared with the reference standard (ABPM)?
Eighteen fair- to good-quality studies (n鈥�=鈥�57鈥�128) examined the diagnostic accuracy of confirmatory blood pressure measurements compared with an ABPM reference standard in adults with a previously detected elevated OBPM (eTable 6 in the Supplement).25,28,30,33,34,40,44,51,52,57,65,66,69,74,81,88,90,99 The Spanish ABPM Registry included 45鈥�020 untreated individuals and represents much of the included evidence for this question.28 Only 2 studies were conducted in the US.30,44 Participants in the studies included patients referred by primary care physicians to blood pressure clinics because of borderline or elevated blood pressures, consecutive patients referred to ABPM or hypertension clinics, or individuals newly diagnosed as hypertensive by OBPM and not yet treated. Overall, the participants represented a wide range of demographic and clinical characteristics (eTable 6 in the Supplement). The prevalence of hypertension as defined by ABPM among this preselected population ranged from 47%74,99 to 80%.69 Two of the included studies were rated as good quality, with low risk of bias for all domains.65,90 All other studies were rated fair quality.
Four confirmatory blood pressure measurement modalities were examined for this KQ: repeated office blood pressure measurement (repeat OBPM), twice-daily home blood pressure measurement for 3 to 7 days (HBPM), measurement performed by a patient in the office setting (self-OBPM), and a truncated 6-hour ambulatory blood pressure measurement (truncated ABPM).
The majority of evidence (13/18 studies) was for repeat OBPM.27,33,34,40,44,51,52,57,65,81,88,90,99 As in KQ2, most OBPM confirmatory measurements were obtained with the patient seated with at least 5 minutes鈥� rest, attended by personnel, taken with a mercury sphygmomanometer, used a diagnostic threshold of 140/90 mm Hg or greater, and were conducted at a single visit (eTable 7 in the Supplement). Other protocol details varied widely. Meta-analysis of 8 OBPM confirmation studies (n鈥�=鈥�53鈥�183) reporting SBP/DBP thresholds showed a pooled sensitivity of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.68-0.88) and a pooled specificity of 0.55 (95% CI, 0.42-0.66) with high heterogeneity (Figure 4; eTable 8 in the Supplement).27,44,52,57,65,81,88,90 Among these 8 studies, positive predictive values ranged from 0.61 to 0.88 and negative predictive values from 0.30 to 0.82. False-positive rates ranged from 15% to 65% and false-negative rates from 10% to 65%. Five studies did not contribute to the meta-analysis because they used SBP-only or DBP-only index thresholds, reference test thresholds, or both, that are not relevant to current clinical practice or did not provide sufficient data for pooling; these studies similarly reported large variations in accuracy (eTable 8 in the Supplement).33,40,44,51,99 One study reported results for multiple OBPM thresholds with increased sensitivity and decreased specificity as thresholds are lowered.34 No included study reported accuracy for an OBPM threshold of 130/80 mm Hg or greater.
Four studies (n鈥�=鈥�1001) examined HBPM as a confirmatory method.25,65,66,69 In these studies, participants were instructed to measure blood pressure for 3 to 7 days in the morning and evening in the seated position after a rest period of usually 5 minutes (eTable 9 in the Supplement). Meta-analysis of these 4 HBPM confirmation studies with a threshold of 135/85 mm Hg or greater (n鈥�=鈥�1001) showed a pooled sensitivity of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.76-0.90) and pooled specificity of 0.60 (95% CI, 0.48-0.71) (Figure 4; eTable 10 in the Supplement). Positive predictive values ranged from 0.68 to 0.94 and negative predictive values from 0.46 to 0.86. False-positive rates ranged from 22% to 50% and false-negative rates from 7% to 24%. Two studies reported accuracy for multiple HBPM thresholds.25,69 These studies consistently showed increased sensitivity and decreased specificity as index test thresholds are lowered.
Two studies (n鈥�=鈥�698) evaluated an index test in which a participant used an HBPM device to take their own blood pressure in an office setting (self-OBPM) (eTable 11 in the Supplement).66,74 While many fundamental device and protocol characteristics were similar among these studies, thresholds were not comparable, and measurements were unattended by staff in 1 study. Only 1 study used SBP/DBP thresholds relevant to current clinical practice and reported high sensitivity (0.92) and low specificity (0.25) (eTable 12 in the Supplement). The positive predictive value in that study was 0.59 and the negative predictive value was 0.72. The false-positive rate was 75% and the false-negative rate was 8%.
One study (n鈥�=鈥�263) reported the accuracy of a truncated (6-hour) ABPM compared with a full 24-hour ABPM test (eTable 13 in the Supplement).30 Sensitivity and specificity were 0.94 and 0.76, respectively, for the subgroup (n鈥�=鈥�126) for whom the ABPM indication was borderline hypertension (eTable 14 in the Supplement). Sensitivity and specificity were 0.89 and 0.70, respectively, for the subgroup (n鈥�=鈥�137) with suspected white coat hypertension.
Two studies (n鈥�=鈥�564) reported the accuracy of multiple confirmation methods against the same ABPM reference standard.65,66 One study (n鈥�=鈥�361) reported the accuracy of repeat OPBM and HBPM compared with a daytime ABPM reference standard.65 Sensitivity was high and similar for both index tests (0.85 [95% CI, 0.80-0.88] for OBPM and 0.87 [95% CI, 0.83-0.91] for HBPM). Specificity was low for both modalities (0.43 [95% CI, 0.33-0.54] for OBPM and 0.61 [95% CI, 0.51-0.71] for HBPM). The second study (n鈥�=鈥�203) reported the accuracy of HBPM and self-OBPM compared with a daytime ABPM reference standard.66 Sensitivity was high and similar for both index tests (0.93 [95% CI, 0.86-0.97] for HBPM and 0.92 [95% CI, 0.85-0.96] for self-OBPM). Specificity was low for both modalities, with self-OBPM being substantially worse (0.50 [95% CI, 0.40-0.61] for HBPM and 0.25 [95% CI, 0.16-0.35] for self-OBPM).
Key Question 3a. What confirmation protocol characteristics define the best test accuracy?
Five of 18 confirmation studies reported within-study comparisons of protocol characteristics on accuracy.33,44,66,69,74 Evidence on protocol variations for any one confirmation modality was sparse, but very limited evidence from 2 studies (n鈥�=鈥�459) may suggest that for HBPM, additional days of measurement beyond 5 do not improve accuracy.66,69
Key Question 4. What are the harms of screening for hypertension in adults?
Thirteen fair- to good-quality studies (n鈥�=鈥�5150) examined the harms of screening and diagnosis of hypertension.22,24,39,53,58-60,64,73,82,85,91,93,94 Evidence for KQ4 is derived from heterogeneous populations and studies of limited quality largely performed 2 or more decades ago (eTable 15 in the Supplement). The limited existing evidence suggests that screening is associated with no decrement in quality of life or psychological distress,24,58,82,89,93 and the scant evidence on screening鈥檚 effect on absenteeism is mixed.39,73,85 ABPM follow-up testing is associated with minor adverse events including temporary sleep disturbance and bruising.53,60,64,79,89,91,94 Inaccurate diagnoses (false-positive and false-negative results) are also considered harms of screening and confirmation and have been discussed under KQ2 and KQ3 results.
This study reviewed the benefits and harms of screening for hypertension in adults, as well as the accuracy of tests; a summary of the evidence by key question is provided in the Table. The lack of contemporary population-based trials solely evaluating hypertension screening may be expected; such trials would not be considered feasible or ethical given that hypertension screening is standard practice and there is a robust evidence base linking asymptomatic hypertension treatment to improved CVD outcomes.102-107 Thus, the focus of this review was on the accuracy of screening (KQ2) and confirmatory (KQ3) blood pressure measurements, protocol variations that may influence accuracy (KQ2a and KQ3a), and the harms of screening and confirmation of hypertension (KQ4).
To our knowledge, this is the only published systematic review comparing the accuracy of office-based screening with an ABPM gold standard (KQ2). In the context of hypertension confirmation, the results of the present systematic review on the accuracy of confirmation (KQ3) are reasonably consistent with data from the International Database of Ambulatory Blood Pressure in relation to Cardiovascular Outcome (n鈥�=鈥�4997) and other systematic reviews of confirmation, even though other reviews have included mixed populations of treated and untreated individuals and populations with and without previous elevated OBPMs.14,15,108-110 The highly variable specificities in these reviews of confirmation likely reflect heterogeneity in populations and measurement protocols.
Any hypertension screening algorithm using measurement modalities other than ABPM alone will incur a considerable number of missed cases of masked hypertension as well as treatment of white coat hypertension. However, the clinical significance of the poor accuracy of OBPM is largely unknown. Subsequent consequences of poor OBPM accuracy could include delays in the identification and treatment of masked hypertension. For white coat hypertension, poor OBPM accuracy could result in unnecessary treatment and exposure to adverse effects or conversely a treatment benefit. Meta-analyses suggest that for untreated individuals generally recruited from population-based cohorts, cardiovascular risk progressively increases in the order of normotension, white coat hypertension, masked hypertension, and sustained hypertension.111-116 There are no clinical effectiveness trials for the treatment of masked hypertension, and subanalyses of trials analyzing the treatment benefit in white coat hypertension have yielded mixed results.117-119 Nonetheless, the robust evidence base supporting hypertension screening and treatment have historically been based solely on OBPM; therefore, participants with white coat hypertension were invariably included in those treatment trials.7,8
Multiple strategies have been suggested to improve accuracy for identifying those with sustained and masked hypertension. AOBP has been suggested as a replacement for traditional office screening and out-of-office confirmation modalities.120 However, there were no included studies of unattended AOBP and only 1 study of attended AOBP reporting test accuracy compared with an ABPM reference standard.35 Other systematic reviews have suggested that, on average, mean AOBP and ABPM values in terms of mm Hg are similar; however, there is substantial heterogeneity and it is unclear if lack of mean mm Hg differences would result in similar diagnostic categorization and treatment decisions.13,121,122 Because higher 10-year CVD risk scores have been associated with an increased prevalence of masked hypertension, CVD risk tools could be useful for identifying specific populations that may benefit from ABPM to identify masked hypertension.123,124 Lowering the OBPM screening threshold is a possible approach to increase test sensitivity for sustained hypertension101 or to additionally identify a population for whom ABPM may be ordered to detect masked hypertension.80,101,125 Despite 2017 guidance from the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association lowering the OBPM diagnostic threshold to 130/80 mm Hg or greater,101 no studies are available in an untreated population that report accuracy of this threshold compared with 140/90 mm Hg or greater using the same ABPM reference standard threshold. Trials examining the comparative accuracy and feasibility of various blood pressure measurement strategies for diagnostic confirmation of hypertension in primary care are needed; the publication of 1 such trial (BP-CHECK []) is anticipated in 2021.126
This systematic review has several limitations. First, it excluded accuracy studies in which 20% or more of participants were treated to approximate screening populations. The accuracy of blood pressure measurements may be influenced by blood pressure variability, and variability may be reduced by hypertension medications.127,128 These pooled accuracy estimates therefore may not be applicable to treated populations. Second, for confirmatory test accuracy (KQ3), studies were included that enrolled participants referred for ABPM; while there are indications for ABPM referral outside of diagnostic confirmation, the lack of treatment was considered a proxy for diagnostic confirmation. Third, this review did not include accuracy studies that only reported mm Hg differences between measurement modalities or studies that only included 魏 values as a measure of agreement because clinical decision-making to initiate pharmacotherapy is based on blood pressures exceeding a defined threshold. Fourth, the reference standard for all accuracy studies was ABPM based on the previous review鈥檚 conclusion that there was a robust evidence base that ABPM is predictive of future CVD events129; nonetheless, there is evidence suggesting that HBPM may be an alternative.130 Fifth, foundational evidence supporting screening is derived from treatment trials almost exclusively recruiting patients based on elevated office measurements without out-of-office confirmation.102-107 Sixth, treatment benefits and harms were beyond the scope of this review.
Screening using office-based blood pressure measurement had major accuracy limitations, including misdiagnosis; however, direct harms of measurement were minimal. Research is needed to determine optimal screening and confirmatory algorithms for clinical practice.
Corresponding Author: Janelle M. Guirguis-Blake, MD, Kaiser Permanente Evidence-based Practice Center, Department of Family Medicine, University of Washington, 521 Martin Luther King Jr Way, Tacoma, WA 98405 (jguirgui@u.washington.edu).
Accepted for Publication: October 15, 2020.
Author Contributions: Dr Guirguis-Blake had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
Concept and design: Guirguis-Blake, Evans, Coppola, Weyrich.
Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Guirguis-Blake, Evans, Webber, Coppola, Perdue, Weyrich.
Drafting of the manuscript: Guirguis-Blake, Evans, Coppola.
Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Guirguis-Blake, Evans, Webber, Coppola, Perdue, Weyrich.
Statistical analysis: Perdue.
Administrative, technical, or material support: Evans, Webber, Coppola, Weyrich.
Supervision: Guirguis-Blake, Evans.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.
Funding/Support: This research was funded under contract HHSA-290-2015-000017-I-EPC5, Task Order 5, from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), US Department of Health and Human Services, under a contract to support the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).
Role of the Funder/Sponsor: Investigators worked with USPSTF members and AHRQ staff to develop the scope, analytic framework, and key questions for this review. AHRQ had no role in study selection, quality assessment, or synthesis. AHRQ staff provided project oversight, reviewed the report to ensure that the analysis met methodological standards, and distributed the draft for peer review. Otherwise, AHRQ had no role in the conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; and preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript findings.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not reflect the official position of AHRQ or the US Department of Health and Human Services.
Additional Contributions: The authors gratefully acknowledge the following individuals for their contributions to this project: Tina Fan, MD, MPH, and Brandy Peaker, MD, MPH, at the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; current and former members of the US Preventive Services Task Force who contributed to topic deliberations; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for providing federal partner review of the draft report; Evidence-based Practice Center staff member Jennifer S Lin, MD, MCR, for mentoring and project oversight; and Todd Hannon, MLS, and Jill Pope, BA, for technical and editorial assistance at the Center for Health Research. USPSTF members, peer reviewers, and those commenting on behalf of partner organizations did not receive financial compensation for their contributions.
Additional information: A draft version of this evidence report underwent external peer review from 5 content experts (Beverly Green, MD, MPH, Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute; Mike LeFevre, MD, MSPH, MU Health Care, Future of Family Medicine; Paul Muntner, PhD, University of Alabama at Birmingham; Daichi Shimbo, MD, Columbia University; and Reem Mustafa, MBBS, PhD, MPH, University of Kansas) and 2 federal partners, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Comments were presented to the USPSTF during its deliberation of the evidence and were considered in preparing the final evidence review.
Editorial Disclaimer: This evidence report is presented as a document in support of the accompanying USPSTF Recommendation Statement. It did not undergo additional peer review after submission to JAMA.
1.National Center for Health Statistics. 听Health, United States, 2017: With Special Feature on Mortality.锘� Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2018.
2.Benjamin
听EJ锘�, Muntner
听P锘�, Alonso
听A锘�,
听et al; American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. 听Heart disease and stroke statistics鈥�2019 update: a report from the American Heart Association.听锘� 听颁颈谤肠耻濒补迟颈辞苍. 2019;139(10):e56-e528. doi:
3.Patel
听SA锘�, Winkel
听M锘�, Ali
听MK锘�, Narayan
听KM锘�, Mehta
听NK锘�. 听Cardiovascular mortality associated with 5 leading risk factors: national and state preventable fractions estimated from survey data.听锘� 听Ann Intern Med. 2015;163(4):245-253. doi:
4.Patnode
听CD锘�, Evans
听CV锘�, Senger
听CA锘�, Redmond
听N锘�, Lin
听JS锘�. 听Behavioral counseling to promote a healthful diet and physical activity for cardiovascular disease prevention in adults without known cardiovascular disease risk factors: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.听锘� 听闯础惭础. 2017;318(2):175-193. doi:
5.Graudal
听NA锘�, Hubeck-Graudal
听T锘�, Jurgens
听G锘�. 听Effects of low sodium diet versus high sodium diet on blood pressure, renin, aldosterone, catecholamines, cholesterol, and triglyceride.听锘� 听Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;4:CD004022. doi:
6.Rees
听K锘�, Dyakova
听M锘�, Wilson
听N锘�, Ward
听K锘�, Thorogood
听M锘�, Brunner
听E锘�. 听Dietary advice for reducing cardiovascular risk.听锘� 听Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(12):CD002128.
7.Musini
听VM锘�, Gueyffier
听F锘�, Puil
听L锘�, Salzwedel
听DM锘�, Wright
听JM锘�. 听Pharmacotherapy for hypertension in adults aged 18 to 59 years.听锘� 听Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;8:CD008276. doi:
8.Musini
听VM锘�, Tejani
听AM锘�, Bassett
听K锘�, Wright
听JM锘�. 听Pharmacotherapy for hypertension in the elderly.听锘� 听Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;(4):CD000028.
9.听Report of the Joint National Committee on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure: a cooperative study.听锘� 听闯础惭础. 1977;237(3):255-261. doi:
10.Siu
听AL锘�; US Preventive Services Task Force. 听Screening for high blood pressure in adults: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.听锘� 听Ann Intern Med. 2015;163(10):778-786. doi:
11.Guirguis-Blake
听JM锘�, Evans
听CV锘�, Webber
听EM锘�, Coppola
听EL锘�, Perdue
听LA锘�, Weyrich
听MS锘�. 听Screening for Hypertension in Adults: A Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Evidence Synthesis No. 197. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2021. AHRQ publication 20-05265-EF-1.
12.Piper
听MA锘�, Evans
听CV锘�, Burda
听BU锘�, Margolis
听KL锘�, O鈥機onnor
听E锘�, Whitlock
听EP锘�. 听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.听锘� 听Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(3):192-204. doi:
13.Roerecke
听M锘�, Kaczorowski
听J锘�, Myers
听MG锘�. 听Comparing automated office blood pressure readings with other methods of blood pressure measurement for identifying patients with possible hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis.听锘� 听闯础惭础 Intern Med. 2019;179(3):351-362. doi:
14.Hodgkinson
听J锘�, Mant
听J锘�, Martin
听U锘�,
听et al. 听Relative effectiveness of clinic and home blood pressure monitoring compared with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in diagnosis of hypertension: systematic review.听锘� 听叠惭闯. 2011;342:d3621. doi:
15.Melgarejo
听JD锘�, Maestre
听GE锘�, Thijs
听L锘�,
听et al; International Database on Ambulatory Blood Pressure in Relation to Cardiovascular Outcomes (IDACO) Investigators. 听Prevalence, treatment, and control rates of conventional and ambulatory hypertension across 10 populations in 3 continents.听锘� 听贬测辫别谤迟别苍蝉颈辞苍. 2017;70(1):50-58. doi:
16.听Human Development Report 2016: Human Development Everyone.锘� United Nations Development Programme; 2016.
17.Yang
听WY锘�, Melgarejo
听JD锘�, Thijs
听L锘�,
听et al; International Database on Ambulatory Blood Pressure in Relation to Cardiovascular Outcomes (IDACO) Investigators. 听Association of office and ambulatory blood pressure with mortality and cardiovascular outcomes.听锘� 听闯础惭础. 2019;322(5):409-420. doi:
18.Procedure Manual. US Preventive Services Task Force. Published 2018. Accessed March 10, 2021.
19.Larkin
听KT锘�, Schauss
听SL锘�, Elnicki
听DM锘�. 听Isolated clinic hypertension and normotension: false positives and false negatives in the assessment of hypertension.听锘� 听Blood pressure monitoring.锘� 1998;3:247-254.
20.H盲nninen
听MR锘�, Niiranen
听TJ锘�, Puukka
听PJ锘�, Jula
听AM锘�. 听Comparison of home and ambulatory blood pressure measurement in the diagnosis of masked hypertension.听锘� 听J Hypertens. 2010;28(4):709-714. doi:
21.Berkman
听N锘�, Lohr
听K锘�, Ansari
听M锘�,
听et al. 听Grading the Strength of a Body of Evidence When Assessing Health Care Interventions for the Effective Health Care Program of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: An Update: Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2014. AHRQ publication 10(14)-EHC063-EF.
22.听Randomised controlled trial of treatment for mild hypertension: design and pilot trial: report of Medical Research Council Working Party on Mild to Moderate Hypertension.听锘� 听叠惭闯. 1977;1(6074):1437-1440.
23.Abdalla
听M锘�, Goldsmith
听J锘�, Muntner
听P锘�,
听et al. 听Is isolated nocturnal hypertension a reproducible phenotype?听锘� 听Am J Hypertens. 2016;29(1):33-38. doi:
24.Ameling
听EH锘�, de Korte
听DF锘�, Man in 鈥檛 Veld
听A锘�. 听Impact of diagnosis and treatment of hypertension on quality of life: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, cross-over study of betaxolol.听锘� 听J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 1991;18(5):752-760. doi:
25.Bay贸
听J锘�, Cos
听FX锘�, Roca
听C锘�, Dalf贸
听A锘�, Mart铆n-Baranera
听MM锘�, Albert
听B锘�. 听Home blood pressure self-monitoring: diagnostic performance in white-coat hypertension.听锘� 听Blood Press Monit. 2006;11(2):47-52. doi:
26.Cuspidi
听C锘�, Facchetti
听R锘�, Bombelli
听M锘�,
听et al. 听Risk of new-onset metabolic syndrome associated with white-coat and masked hypertension: data from a general population.听锘� 听J Hypertens. 2018;36(9):1833-1839. doi:
27.de la Sierra
听A锘�, Vinyoles
听E锘�, Banegas
听JR锘�,
听et al. 听Short-term and long-term reproducibility of hypertension phenotypes obtained by office and ambulatory blood pressure measurements.听锘� 听J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2016;18(9):927-933. doi:
28.de la Sierra
听A锘�, Vinyoles
听E锘�, Banegas
听JR锘�,
听et al. 听Prevalence and clinical characteristics of white-coat hypertension based on different definition criteria in untreated and treated patients.听锘� 听J Hypertens. 2017;35(12):2388-2394. doi:
29.Diaz
听KM锘�, Veerabhadrappa
听P锘�, Brown
听MD锘�, Whited
听MC锘�, Dubbert
听PM锘�, Hickson
听DA锘�. 听Prevalence, determinants, and clinical significance of masked hypertension in a population-based sample of African Americans: the Jackson Heart Study.听锘� 听Am J Hypertens. 2015;28(7):900-908. doi:
30.Ernst
听ME锘�, Sezate
听GS锘�, Lin
听W锘�,
听et al. 听Indication-specific 6-h systolic blood pressure thresholds can approximate 24-h determination of blood pressure control.听锘� 听J Hum Hypertens. 2011;25(4):250-255. doi:
31.Ernst
听ME锘�, Weber
听CA锘�, Dawson
听JD锘�,
听et al. 听How well does a shortened time interval characterize results of a full ambulatory blood pressure monitoring session?听锘� 听J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2008;10(6):431-435. doi:
32.Fagard
听RH锘�, Van Den Broeke
听C锘�, De Cort
听P锘�. 听Prognostic significance of blood pressure measured in the office, at home and during ambulatory monitoring in older patients in general practice.听锘� 听J Hum Hypertens. 2005;19(10):801-807. doi:
33.Fogari
听R锘�, Corradi
听L锘�, Zoppi
听A锘�, Lusardi
听P锘�, Poletti
听L锘�. 听Repeated office blood pressure controls reduce the prevalence of white-coat hypertension and detect a group of white-coat normotensive patients.听锘� 听Blood Press Monit. 1996;1(1):51-54.
34.Gerc
听V锘�, Favrat
听B锘�, Brunner
听HR锘�, Burnier
听M锘�. 听Is nurse-measured blood pressure a valid substitute for ambulatory blood pressure monitoring?听锘� 听Blood Press Monit. 2000;5(4):203-209. doi:
35.Gill
听P锘�, Haque
听MS锘�, Martin
听U锘�,
听et al. 听Measurement of blood pressure for the diagnosis and management of hypertension in different ethnic groups: one size fits all.听锘� 听BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2017;17(1):55. doi:
36.Gosse
听P锘�, Dauphinot
听V锘�, Roche
听F锘�, Pichot
听V锘�, Celle
听S锘�, Barthelemy
听JC锘�. 听Prevalence of clinical and ambulatory hypertension in a population of 65-year-olds: the PROOF study.听锘� 听J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2010;12(3):160-165. doi:
37.Gourlay
听SG锘�, McNeil
听JJ锘�, Marriner
听T锘�, Farish
听SJ锘�, Prijatmoko
听D锘�, McGrath
听BP锘�. 听Discordance of mercury sphygmomanometer and ambulatory blood pressure measurements for the detection of untreated hypertension in a population study.听锘� 听J Hum Hypertens. 1993;7(5):467-472.
38.Hansen
听TW锘�, Jeppesen
听J锘�, Rasmussen
听S锘�, Ibsen
听H锘�, Torp-Pedersen
听C锘�. 听Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and risk of cardiovascular disease: a population based study.听锘� 听Am J Hypertens. 2006;19(3):243-250. doi:
39.Haynes
听RB锘�, Sackett
听DL锘�, Taylor
听DW锘�, Gibson
听ES锘�, Johnson
听AL锘�. 听Increased absenteeism from work after detection and labeling of hypertensive patients.听锘� 听N Engl J Med. 1978;299(14):741-744. doi:
40.H酶egholm
听A锘�, Kristensen
听KS锘�, Madsen
听NH锘�, Svendsen
听TL锘�. 听White coat hypertension diagnosed by 24-h ambulatory monitoring: examination of 159 newly diagnosed hypertensive patients.听锘� 听Am J Hypertens. 1992;5(2):64-70. doi:
41.Hoegholm
听A锘�, Kristensen
听KS锘�, Madsen
听NH锘�, Svendsen
听TL锘�. 听The frequency of white coat hypertension among patients with newly diagnosed hypertension.听锘� 听Cardiovasc Rev Rep.锘� 1994;15:55-61.
42.Hoshide
听S锘�, Ishikawa
听J锘�, Eguchi
听K锘�, Ojima
听T锘�, Shimada
听K锘�, Kario
听K锘�. 听Masked nocturnal hypertension and target organ damage in hypertensives with well-controlled self-measured home blood pressure.听锘� 听Hypertens Res. 2007;30(2):143-149.
43.Hozawa
听A锘�, Ohkubo
听T锘�, Kikuya
听M锘�,
听et al. 听Blood pressure control assessed by home, ambulatory and conventional blood pressure measurements in the Japanese general population: the Ohasama study.听锘� 听Hypertens Res. 2002;25(1):57-63. doi:
44.Husain
听A锘�, Lin
听FC锘�, Tuttle
听LA锘�, Olsson
听E锘�, Viera
听AJ锘�. 听The reproducibility of racial differences in ambulatory blood pressure phenotypes and measurements.听锘� 听Am J Hypertens. 2017;30(10):961-967. doi:
45.Imai
听Y锘�, Tsuji
听I锘�, Nagai
听K锘�,
听et al锘� 听Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in evaluating the prevalence of hypertension in adults in Ohasama, a rural Japanese community.听锘� 听Hypertens Res. 1996;19(3):207-212. doi:
46.Ishikawa
听J锘�, Hoshide
听S锘�, Eguchi
听K锘�,
听et al. 听Masked hypertension defined by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring is associated with an increased serum glucose level and urinary albumin-creatinine ratio.听锘� 听J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2010;12(8):578-587. doi:
47.Kaczorowski
听J锘�, Chambers
听LW锘�, Dolovich
听L锘�,
听et al. 听Improving cardiovascular health at population level: 39 community cluster randomised trial of Cardiovascular Health Awareness Program (CHAP).听锘� 听叠惭闯. 2011;342:d442. doi:
48.Kaczorowski
听J锘�, Chambers
听LW锘�, Karwalajtys
听T锘�,
听et al. 听Cardiovascular Health Awareness Program (CHAP): a community cluster-randomised trial among elderly Canadians.听锘� 听Prev Med. 2008;46(6):537-544. doi:
49.Kanno
听A锘�, Metoki
听H锘�, Kikuya
听M锘�,
听et al. 听Usefulness of assessing masked and white-coat hypertension by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring for determining prevalent risk of chronic kidney disease: the Ohasama study.听锘� 听Hypertens Res. 2010;33(11):1192-1198. doi:
50.Karwalajtys
听T锘�, Kaczorowski
听J锘�, Chambers
听LW锘�,
听et al. 听Community mobilization, participation, and blood pressure status in a Cardiovascular Health Awareness Program in Ontario.听锘� 听Am J Health Promot. 2013;27(4):252-261. doi:
51.Kim
听S锘�, Park
听JJ锘�, Lee
听SA锘�,
听et al. 听Diagnostic accuracy of manual office blood pressure measurement in ambulatory hypertensive patients in Korea.听锘� 听Korean J Intern Med. 2018;33(1):113-120. doi:
52.Kotsis
听V锘�, Stabouli
听S锘�, Toumanidis
听S锘�,
听et al. 听Target organ damage in 鈥渨hite coat hypertension鈥� and 鈥渕asked hypertension.鈥澨豢 听Am J Hypertens. 2008;21(4):393-399. doi:
53.Kuwajima
听I锘�, Nishinaga
听M锘�, Kanamaru
听A锘�. 听The accuracy and clinical performance of a new compact ambulatory blood pressure monitoring device, the ES-H531.听锘� 听Am J Hypertens. 1998;11(11, pt 1):1328-1333. doi:
54.Lyamina
听NP锘�, Smith
听ML锘�, Lyamina
听SV锘�,
听et al. 听Pressor response to 30-s breathhold: a predictor of masked hypertension.听锘� 听Blood Press. 2012;21(6):372-376. doi:
55.Mancia
听G锘�, Facchetti
听R锘�, Bombelli
听M锘�, Grassi
听G锘�, Sega
听R锘�. 听Long-term risk of mortality associated with selective and combined elevation in office, home, and ambulatory blood pressure.听锘� 听贬测辫别谤迟别苍蝉颈辞苍. 2006;47(5):846-853. doi:
56.Mancia
听G锘�, Sega
听R锘�, Bravi
听C锘�,
听et al. 听Ambulatory blood pressure normality: results from the PAMELA study.听锘� 听J Hypertens. 1995;13(12, pt 1):1377-1390. doi:
57.Manios
听ED锘�, Koroboki
听EA锘�, Tsivgoulis
听GK锘�,
听et al. 听Factors influencing white-coat effect.听锘� 听Am J Hypertens. 2008;21(2):153-158. doi:
58.Mann
听AH锘�. 听The psychological effect of a screening programme and clinical trial for hypertension upon the participants.听锘� 听Psychol Med. 1977;7(3):431-438. doi:
59.Manning
听G锘�, Rushton
听L锘�, Donnelly
听R锘�, Millar-Craig
听MW锘�. 听Variability of diurnal changes in ambulatory blood pressure and nocturnal dipping status in untreated hypertensive and normotensive subjects.听锘� 听Am J Hypertens. 2000;13(9):1035-1038. doi:
60.Manning
听G锘�, Vijan
听SG锘�, Millar-Craig
听MW锘�. 听Does perception of sleep quality affect diurnal variation of blood pressure and heart rate during 24Hr blood pressure monitoring?听锘� 听Clin Sci (Lond). 1992;83(suppl 27):22P-23P. doi:
61.Martin
听U锘�, Haque
听MS锘�, Wood
听S锘�,
听et al. 听Ethnicity and differences between clinic and ambulatory blood pressure measurements.听锘� 听Am J Hypertens. 2015;28(6):729-738. doi:
62.McMullan
听CJ锘�, Hickson
听DA锘�, Taylor
听HA锘�, Forman
听JP锘�. 听Prospective analysis of the association of ambulatory blood pressure characteristics with incident chronic kidney disease.听锘� 听J Hypertens. 2015;33(9):1939-1946. doi:
63.Muntner
听P锘�, Lewis
听CE锘�, Diaz
听KM锘�,
听et al. 听Racial differences in abnormal ambulatory blood pressure monitoring measures: results from the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study.听锘� 听Am J Hypertens. 2015;28(5):640-648. doi:
64.Nasothimiou
听EG锘�, Karpettas
听N锘�, Dafni
听MG锘�, Stergiou
听GS锘�. 听Patients鈥� preference for ambulatory versus home blood pressure monitoring.听锘� 听J Hum Hypertens. 2014;28(4):224-229. doi:
65.Nasothimiou
听EG锘�, Tzamouranis
听D锘�, Rarra
听V锘�, Roussias
听LG锘�, Stergiou
听GS锘�. 听Diagnostic accuracy of home vs. ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in untreated and treated hypertension.听锘� 听Hypertens Res. 2012;35(7):750-755. doi:
66.Nunan
听D锘�, Thompson
听M锘�, Heneghan
听CJ锘�, Perera
听R锘�, McManus
听RJ锘�, Ward
听A锘�. 听Accuracy of self-monitored blood pressure for diagnosing hypertension in primary care.听锘� 听J Hypertens. 2015;33(4):755-762. doi:
67.O鈥橣lynn
听AM锘�, Curtin
听RJ锘�, Perry
听IJ锘�, Kearney
听PM锘�. 听贬测辫别谤迟别苍蝉颈辞苍 prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control: should 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring be the tool of choice?听锘� 听J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2016;18(7):697-702. doi:
68.Oe
听Y锘�, Shimbo
听D锘�, Ishikawa
听J锘�,
听et al. 听Alterations in diastolic function in masked hypertension: findings from the masked hypertension study.听锘� 听Am J Hypertens. 2013;26(6):808-815. doi:
69.Park
听JS锘�, Rhee
听MY锘�, Namgung
听J锘�,
听et al. 听Comparison of optimal diagnostic thresholds of hypertension with home blood pressure monitoring and 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.听锘� 听Am J Hypertens. 2017;30(12):1170-1176. doi:
70.Poudel
听B锘�, Booth
听JN
听III锘�, Sakhuja
听S锘�,
听et al. 听Prevalence of ambulatory blood pressure phenotypes using the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association blood pressure guideline thresholds: data from the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults study.听锘� 听J Hypertens. 2019;37(7):1401-1410. doi:
71.Presta
听V锘�, Figliuzzi
听I锘�, D鈥橝gostino
听M锘�,
听et al. 听Nocturnal blood pressure patterns and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with masked hypertension.听锘� 听J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2018;20(9):1238-1246. doi:
72.Rhee
听MY锘�, Kim
听JY锘�, Kim
听JH锘�,
听et al. 听Optimal schedule of home blood-pressure measurements for the diagnosis of hypertension.听锘� 听Hypertens Res. 2018;41(9):738-747. doi:
73.Rudd
听P锘�, Price
听MG锘�, Graham
听LE锘�,
听et al. 听Consequences of worksite hypertension screening: changes in absenteeism.听锘� 听贬测辫别谤迟别苍蝉颈辞苍. 1987;10(4):425-436. doi:
74.Salazar
听MR锘�, Espeche
听WG锘�, Stavile
听RN锘�,
听et al. 听Could self-measured office blood pressure be a hypertension screening tool for limited-resources settings?听锘� 听J Hum Hypertens. 2018;32(6):415-422. doi:
75.Scuteri
听A锘�, Morrell
听CH锘�, Orru鈥�
听M锘�,
听et al. 听Gender specific profiles of white coat and masked hypertension impacts on arterial structure and function in the SardiNIA study.听锘� 听Int J Cardiol. 2016;217:92-98. doi:
76.Scuteri
听A锘�, Najjar
听SS锘�, Orru鈥�
听M锘�,
听et al. 听Age- and gender-specific awareness, treatment, and control of cardiovascular risk factors and subclinical vascular lesions in a founder population: the SardiNIA Study.听锘� 听Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2009;19(8):532-541. doi:
77.Sehestedt
听T锘�, Jeppesen
听J锘�, Hansen
听TW锘�,
听et al. 听Can ambulatory blood pressure measurements substitute assessment of subclinical cardiovascular damage?听锘� 听J Hypertens. 2012;30(3):513-521. doi:
78.Selenta
听C锘�, Hogan
听BE锘�, Linden
听W锘�. 听How often do office blood pressure measurements fail to identify true hypertension? an exploration of white-coat normotension.听锘� 听Arch Fam Med. 2000;9(6):533-540. doi:
79.Sherwood
听A锘�, Hill
听LK锘�, Blumenthal
听JA锘�, Hinderliter
听AL锘�. 听The effects of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring on sleep quality in men and women with hypertension: dipper vs. nondipper and race differences.听锘� 听Am J Hypertens. 2019;32(1):54-60. doi:
80.Shimbo
听D锘�, Newman
听JD锘�, Schwartz
听JE锘�. 听Masked hypertension and prehypertension: diagnostic overlap and interrelationships with left ventricular mass: the Masked Hypertension Study.听锘� 听Am J Hypertens. 2012;25(6):664-671. doi:
81.Shin
听J锘�, Park
听SH锘�, Kim
听JH锘�,
听et al. 听Discordance between ambulatory versus clinic blood pressure according to global cardiovascular risk group.听锘� 听Korean J Intern Med. 2015;30(5):610-619. doi:
82.Spruill
听TM锘�, Feltheimer
听SD锘�, Harlapur
听M锘�,
听et al. 听Are there consequences of labeling patients with prehypertension? an experimental study of effects on blood pressure and quality of life.听锘� 听J Psychosom Res. 2013;74(5):433-438. doi:
83.Stergiou
听GS锘�, Salgami
听EV锘�, Tzamouranis
听DG锘�, Roussias
听LG锘�. 听Masked hypertension assessed by ambulatory blood pressure versus home blood pressure monitoring: is it the same phenomenon?听锘� 听Am J Hypertens. 2005;18(6):772-778. doi:
84.Stergiou
听GS锘�, Skeva
听II锘�, Baibas
听NM锘�, Kalkana
听CB锘�, Roussias
听LG锘�, Mountokalakis
听TD锘�. 听Diagnosis of hypertension using home or ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: comparison with the conventional strategy based on repeated clinic blood pressure measurements.听锘� 听J Hypertens. 2000;18(12):1745-1751. doi:
85.Taylor
听DW锘�, Haynes
听RB锘�, Sackett
听DL锘�, Gibson
听ES锘�. 听Longterm follow-up of absenteeism among working men following the detection and treatment of their hypertension.听锘� 听Clin Invest Med. 1981;4(3-4):173-177.
86.Terracciano
听A锘�, Scuteri
听A锘�, Strait
听J锘�,
听et al. 听Are personality traits associated with white-coat and masked hypertension?听锘� 听J Hypertens. 2014;32(10):1987-1992. doi:
87.Thomas
听SJ锘�, Booth
听JN
听III锘�, Bromfield
听SG锘�,
听et al. 听Clinic and ambulatory blood pressure in a population-based sample of African Americans: the Jackson Heart Study.听锘� 听J Am Soc Hypertens. 2017;11(4):204-212.e5. doi:
88.Tocci
听G锘�, Presta
听V锘�, Figliuzzi
听I锘�,
听et al. 听Prevalence and clinical outcomes of white-coat and masked hypertension: analysis of a large ambulatory blood pressure database.听锘� 听J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2018;20(2):297-305. doi:
89.Tompson
听AC锘�, Ward
听AM锘�, McManus
听RJ锘�,
听et al. 听Acceptability and psychological impact of out-of-office monitoring to diagnose hypertension: an evaluation of survey data from primary care patients.听锘� 听Br J Gen Pract. 2019;69(683):e389-e397. doi:
90.Ungar
听A锘�, Pepe
听G锘�, Monami
听M锘�,
听et al. 听Isolated ambulatory hypertension is common in outpatients referred to a hypertension centre.听锘� 听J Hum Hypertens. 2004;18(12):897-903. doi:
91.Verdecchia
听P锘�, Angeli
听F锘�, Borgioni
听C锘�, Gattobigio
听R锘�, Reboldi
听G锘�. 听Ambulatory blood pressure and cardiovascular outcome in relation to perceived sleep deprivation.听锘� 听贬测辫别谤迟别苍蝉颈辞苍. 2007;49(4):777-783. doi:
92.Viera
听AJ锘�, Lin
听FC锘�, Tuttle
听LA锘�,
听et al. 听Reproducibility of masked hypertension among adults 30 years or older.听锘� 听Blood Press Monit. 2014;19(4):208-215. doi:
93.Viera
听AJ锘�, Lingley
听K锘�, Esserman
听D锘�. 听Effects of labeling patients as prehypertensive.听锘� 听J Am Board Fam Med. 2010;23(5):571-583. doi:
94.Viera
听AJ锘�, Lingley
听K锘�, Hinderliter
听AL锘�. 听Tolerability of the Oscar 2 ambulatory blood pressure monitor among research participants: a cross-sectional repeated measures study.听锘� 听BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11:59. doi:
95.Wei
听FF锘�, Zhang
听ZY锘�, Thijs
听L锘�,
听et al. 听Conventional and ambulatory blood pressure as predictors of retinal arteriolar narrowing.听锘� 听贬测辫别谤迟别苍蝉颈辞苍. 2016;68(2):511-520. doi:
96.Wojciechowska
听W锘�, Stolarz-Skrzypek
听K锘�, Olszanecka
听A锘�,
听et al. 听Subclinical arterial and cardiac damage in white-coat and masked hypertension.听锘� 听Blood Press. 2016;25(4):249-256. doi:
97.Wood
听S锘�, Martin
听U锘�, Gill
听P锘�,
听et al. 听Blood pressure in different ethnic groups (BP-Eth): a mixed methods study.听锘� 听叠惭闯 Open. 2012;2(6):2012. doi:
98.Ye
听C锘�, Foster
听G锘�, Kaczorowski
听J锘�,
听et al. 听The impact of a Cardiovascular Health Awareness Program (CHAP) on reducing blood pressure: a prospective cohort study.听锘� 听BMC Public Health. 2013;13:1230. doi:
99.Zabludowski
听JR锘�, Rosenfeld
听JB锘�. 听Evaluation of clinic blood pressure measurements: assessment by daytime ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.听锘� 听Isr J Med Sci. 1992;28(6):345-348.
100.Zakopoulos
听NA锘�, Kotsis
听VT锘�, Pitiriga
听VCh锘�,
听et al. 听White-coat effect in normotension and hypertension.听锘� 听Blood Press Monit. 2002;7(5):271-276. doi:
101.Whelton
听PK锘�, Carey
听RM锘�, Aronow
听WS锘�,
听et al. 听2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines.听锘� 听贬测辫别谤迟别苍蝉颈辞苍. 2018;71(6):e13-e115.
102.Czernichow
听S锘�, Zanchetti
听A锘�, Turnbull
听F锘�,
听et al; Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists鈥� Collaboration. 听The effects of blood pressure reduction and of different blood pressure-lowering regimens on major cardiovascular events according to baseline blood pressure: meta-analysis of randomized trials.听锘� 听J Hypertens. 2011;29(1):4-16. doi:
103.Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists鈥� Collaboration. 听Blood pressure-lowering treatment based on cardiovascular risk: a meta-analysis of individual patient data.听锘� 听尝补苍肠别迟. 2014;384(9943):591-598. doi:
104.Xie
听X锘�, Atkins
听E锘�, Lv
听J锘�,
听et al. 听Effects of intensive blood pressure lowering on cardiovascular and renal outcomes: updated systematic review and meta-analysis.听锘� 听尝补苍肠别迟. 2016;387(10017):435-443. doi:
105.Ettehad
听D锘�, Emdin
听CA锘�, Kiran
听A锘�,
听et al. 听Blood pressure lowering for prevention of cardiovascular disease and death: a systematic review and meta-analysis.听锘� 听尝补苍肠别迟. 2016;387(10022):957-967. doi:
106.Bundy
听JD锘�, Li
听C锘�, Stuchlik
听P锘�,
听et al. 听Systolic blood pressure reduction and risk of cardiovascular disease and mortality: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.听锘� 听闯础惭础 Cardiol. 2017;2(7):775-781. doi:
107.Brunstr枚m
听M锘�, Carlberg
听B锘�. 听Association of blood pressure lowering with mortality and cardiovascular disease across blood pressure levels: a systematic review and meta-analysis.听锘� 听闯础惭础 Intern Med. 2018;178(1):28-36. doi:
108.Hypertension in adults: diagnosis and management. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Published August 28, 2019. Accessed March 19, 2021.
109.Reino-Gonzalez
听S锘�, Pita-Fern谩ndez
听S锘�, Seoane-Pillado
听T锘�, L贸pez-Calvi帽o
听B锘�, P茅rtega D铆az
听S锘�. 听How in-office and ambulatory BP monitoring compare: a systematic review and meta-analysis.听锘� 听J Fam Pract. 2017;66(1):E5-E12.
110.Omboni
听S锘�, Aristizabal
听D锘�, De la Sierra
听A锘�,
听et al; ARTEMIS (international Ambulatory blood pressure Registry: TEleMonitoring of hypertension and cardiovascular rISk project) Investigators. 听贬测辫别谤迟别苍蝉颈辞苍 types defined by clinic and ambulatory blood pressure in 14鈥�143 patients referred to hypertension clinics worldwide: data from the ARTEMIS study.听锘� 听J Hypertens. 2016;34(11):2187-2198. doi:
111.Briasoulis
听A锘�, Androulakis
听E锘�, Palla
听M锘�, Papageorgiou
听N锘�, Tousoulis
听D锘�. 听White-coat hypertension and cardiovascular events: a meta-analysis.听锘� 听J Hypertens. 2016;34(4):593-599. doi:
112.Huang
听Y锘�, Huang
听W锘�, Mai
听W锘�,
听et al. 听White-coat hypertension is a risk factor for cardiovascular diseases and total mortality.听锘� 听J Hypertens. 2017;35(4):677-688. doi:
113.Pierdomenico
听SD锘�, Cuccurullo
听F锘�. 听Prognostic value of white-coat and masked hypertension diagnosed by ambulatory monitoring in initially untreated subjects: an updated meta analysis.听锘� 听Am J Hypertens. 2011;24(1):52-58. doi:
114.Asayama
听K锘�, Thijs
听L锘�, Li
听Y锘�,
听et al; International Database on Ambulatory Blood Pressure in Relation to Cardiovascular Outcomes (IDACO) Investigators. 听Setting thresholds to varying blood pressure monitoring intervals differentially affects risk estimates associated with white-coat and masked hypertension in the population.听锘� 听贬测辫别谤迟别苍蝉颈辞苍. 2014;64(5):935-942. doi:
115.Cohen
听JB锘�, Lotito
听MJ锘�, Trivedi
听UK锘�, Denker
听MG锘�, Cohen
听DL锘�, Townsend
听RR锘�. 听Cardiovascular events and mortality in white coat hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis.听锘� 听Ann Intern Med. 2019;170(12):853-862. doi:
116.Shimbo
听D锘�, Muntner
听P锘�. 听Should out-of-office monitoring be performed for detecting white coat hypertension?听锘� 听Ann Intern Med. 2019;170(12):890-892. doi:
117.Fagard
听RH锘�, Staessen
听JA锘�, Thijs
听L锘�,
听et al; Systolic Hypertension in Europe (Syst-Eur) Trial Investigators. 听Response to antihypertensive therapy in older patients with sustained and nonsustained systolic hypertension.听锘� 听颁颈谤肠耻濒补迟颈辞苍. 2000;102(10):1139-1144. doi:
118.Beckett
听NS锘�, Peters
听R锘�, Fletcher
听AE锘�,
听et al; HYVET Study Group. 听Treatment of hypertension in patients 80 years of age or older.听锘� 听N Engl J Med. 2008;358(18):1887-1898. doi:
119.Bulpitt
听CJ锘�, Beckett
听N锘�, Peters
听R锘�,
听et al. 听Does white coat hypertension require treatment over age 80? results of the hypertension in the very elderly trial ambulatory blood pressure side project.听锘� 听贬测辫别谤迟别苍蝉颈辞苍. 2013;61(1):89-94. doi:
120.Myers
听MG锘�, Cloutier
听L锘�, Gelfer
听M锘�, Padwal
听RS锘�, Kaczorowski
听J锘�. 听Blood pressure measurement in the post-SPRINT Era: a Canadian perspective.听锘� 听贬测辫别谤迟别苍蝉颈辞苍. 2016;68(1):e1-e3. doi:
121.Jegatheswaran
听J锘�, Ruzicka
听M锘�, Hiremath
听S锘�, Edwards
听C锘�. 听Are automated blood pressure monitors comparable to ambulatory blood pressure monitors? a systematic review and meta-analysis.听锘� 听Can J Cardiol. 2017;33(5):644-652. doi:
122.Pappaccogli
听M锘�, Di Monaco
听S锘�, Perlo
听E锘�,
听et al. 听Comparison of automated office blood pressure with office and out-off-office measurement techniques.听锘� 听贬测辫别谤迟别苍蝉颈辞苍. 2019;73(2):481-490. doi:
123.Herrett
听E锘�, Gadd
听S锘�, Jackson
听R锘�,
听et al. 听Eligibility and subsequent burden of cardiovascular disease of four strategies for blood pressure-lowering treatment: a retrospective cohort study.听锘� 听尝补苍肠别迟. 2019;394(10199):663-671. doi:
124.Anstey
听DE锘�, Booth
听JN
听III锘�, Abdalla
听M锘�,
听et al. 听Predicted atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk and masked hypertension among Blacks in the Jackson Heart Study.听锘� 听Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2017;10(7):e003421. doi:
125.Booth
听JN
听III锘�, Muntner
听P锘�, Diaz
听KM锘�,
听et al. 听Evaluation of criteria to detect masked hypertension.听锘� 听J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2016;18(11):1086-1094. doi:
126.Green
听BB锘�, Anderson
听ML锘�, Campbell
听J锘�,
听et al. 听Blood pressure checks and diagnosing hypertension (BP-CHECK): Design and methods of a randomized controlled diagnostic study comparing clinic, home, kiosk, and 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring.听锘� 听Contemp Clin Trials. 2019;79:1-13. doi:
127.Omboni
听S锘�, Kario
听K锘�, Bakris
听G锘�, Parati
听G锘�. 听Effect of antihypertensive treatment on 24-h blood pressure variability: pooled individual data analysis of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring studies based on olmesartan mono or combination treatment.听锘� 听J Hypertens. 2018;36(4):720-733. doi:
128.Webb
听AJ锘�, Fischer
听U锘�, Mehta
听Z锘�, Rothwell
听PM锘�. 听Effects of antihypertensive-drug class on interindividual variation in blood pressure and risk of stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis.听锘� 听尝补苍肠别迟. 2010;375(9718):906-915. doi:
129.Piper
听MA锘�, Evans
听CV锘�, Burda
听BU锘�,
听et al. 听Screening for High Blood Pressure in Adults: A Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2014. Report 13-05194-EF-1.
130.Shimbo
听D锘�, Abdalla
听M锘�, Falzon
听L锘�, Townsend
听RR锘�, Muntner
听P锘�. 听Studies comparing ambulatory blood pressure and home blood pressure on cardiovascular disease and mortality outcomes: a systematic review.听锘� 听J Am Soc Hypertens. 2016;10(3):224-234.