Blood pressure measurement prior to initiating hormonal contraception: a systematic review

Contraception ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 87 (5) ◽  
pp. 631-638 ◽  
Author(s):  
Naomi K. Tepper ◽  
Kathryn M. Curtis ◽  
Maria W. Steenland ◽  
Polly A. Marchbanks
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Pressure Measurement ◽  
Blood Pressure Measurement ◽  
Hormonal Contraception

scholarly journals Diagnostic performance of clinic and home blood pressure measurements compared with ambulatory blood pressure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Auttakiat Karnjanapiboonwong ◽  
Thunyarat Anothaisintawee ◽  
Usa Chaikledkaew ◽  
Charungthai Dejthevaporn ◽  
John Attia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Ambulatory Blood Pressure ◽  
Pressure Measurement ◽  
Diagnostic Performance ◽  
Blood Pressure Measurement ◽  
Home Blood Pressure ◽  
Reference Standard ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity ◽  
Pool Prevalence

Abstract Background: Clinic blood pressure measurement (CBPM) is currently the most commonly used form of screening for hypertension, however it might have a problem of 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 which reported 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-hour ABPM as the reference standard, were 74%(95%CI:65%-82%), 79%(95%CI:61%-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:8.55.0-22.03), 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-hour ABPM. Therefore, ABPM is still necessary for confirming the diagnosis of HT.

scholarly journals Method of Blood Pressure Measurement in Neonates and Infants: A Systematic Review and Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 221 ◽  
pp. 23-31.e5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janis M. Dionne ◽  
Stephen A. Bremner ◽  
Simin K. Baygani ◽  
Beau Batton ◽  
Ebru Ergenekon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Pressure Measurement ◽  
Blood Pressure Measurement ◽  
Neonates And Infants

scholarly journals Diagnostic performance of clinic and home blood pressure measurements compared with ambulatory blood pressure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Auttakiat Karnjanapiboonwong ◽  
Thunyarat Anothaisintawee ◽  
Usa Chaikledkaew ◽  
Charungthai Dejthevaporn ◽  
John Attia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Ambulatory Blood Pressure ◽  
Pressure Measurement ◽  
Diagnostic Performance ◽  
Blood Pressure Measurement ◽  
Home Blood Pressure ◽  
Reference Standard ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity ◽  
Pool Prevalence

Abstract 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 which reported 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-hour 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-hour ABPM. Therefore, ABPM is still necessary for confirming the diagnosis of HT.

scholarly journals Diagnostic performance of clinic and home blood pressure measurements compared with ambulatory blood pressure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Auttakiat Karnjanapiboonwong ◽  
Thunyarat Anothaisintawee ◽  
Usa Chaikledkaew ◽  
Charungthai Dejthevaporn ◽  
John Attia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Ambulatory Blood Pressure ◽  
Pressure Measurement ◽  
Diagnostic Performance ◽  
Blood Pressure Measurement ◽  
Home Blood Pressure ◽  
Reference Standard ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity ◽  
Pool Prevalence

Abstract 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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document