The reproducibility of average ambulatory, home, and clinic pressures

G. D. James, T. G. Pickering, L. S. Yee, Gregory A Harshfield, S. Riva, J. H. Laragh

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

249 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The reproducibility of ambulatory, home, and clinic blood pressures was compared in 13 untreated mildly hypertensive and 14 normotensive subjects. Each subject had two sets of daily ambulatory recordings, home self-measured readings (over 6 days), and clinic measurements taken 2 weeks apart. Comparisons over the 2 weeks within and among the methods of measurements were made using a repeated-measures analysis of variance. The results showed that there was no consistent average change in the ambulatory or home pressures and no change in clinic diastolic pressures, but the clinic systolic pressure of the hypertensive subjects dropped 6 mm Hg (p < 0.05), while that of the normotensive subjects showed no significant change. Test-retest correlations of each of the three methods were similar in magnitude, indicating a similar level of reliability. Test-retest correlations of the ambulatory standard deivations, however, were low, indicating a low reliability of this measure of daily pressure variability. These results suggest that the reproducibility of ambulatory pressures may be as good or better than that of home or clinic measurements. They also suggest that the average ambulatory pressure may be preferable as the measurement in clinical trials, since it may be less influenced by measurement anxiety, particularly in hypertensive subjects.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)545-549
Number of pages5
JournalHypertension
Volume11
Issue number6 PART 1
StatePublished - Jan 1 1988
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Pressure
Blood Pressure
Reproducibility of Results
Reading
Analysis of Variance
Anxiety
Clinical Trials

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Internal Medicine

Cite this

James, G. D., Pickering, T. G., Yee, L. S., Harshfield, G. A., Riva, S., & Laragh, J. H. (1988). The reproducibility of average ambulatory, home, and clinic pressures. Hypertension, 11(6 PART 1), 545-549.

The reproducibility of average ambulatory, home, and clinic pressures. / James, G. D.; Pickering, T. G.; Yee, L. S.; Harshfield, Gregory A; Riva, S.; Laragh, J. H.

In: Hypertension, Vol. 11, No. 6 PART 1, 01.01.1988, p. 545-549.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

James, GD, Pickering, TG, Yee, LS, Harshfield, GA, Riva, S & Laragh, JH 1988, 'The reproducibility of average ambulatory, home, and clinic pressures', Hypertension, vol. 11, no. 6 PART 1, pp. 545-549.
James GD, Pickering TG, Yee LS, Harshfield GA, Riva S, Laragh JH. The reproducibility of average ambulatory, home, and clinic pressures. Hypertension. 1988 Jan 1;11(6 PART 1):545-549.
James, G. D. ; Pickering, T. G. ; Yee, L. S. ; Harshfield, Gregory A ; Riva, S. ; Laragh, J. H. / The reproducibility of average ambulatory, home, and clinic pressures. In: Hypertension. 1988 ; Vol. 11, No. 6 PART 1. pp. 545-549.
@article{2a2b308a646d40dfbd324cc9709f8c67,
title = "The reproducibility of average ambulatory, home, and clinic pressures",
abstract = "The reproducibility of ambulatory, home, and clinic blood pressures was compared in 13 untreated mildly hypertensive and 14 normotensive subjects. Each subject had two sets of daily ambulatory recordings, home self-measured readings (over 6 days), and clinic measurements taken 2 weeks apart. Comparisons over the 2 weeks within and among the methods of measurements were made using a repeated-measures analysis of variance. The results showed that there was no consistent average change in the ambulatory or home pressures and no change in clinic diastolic pressures, but the clinic systolic pressure of the hypertensive subjects dropped 6 mm Hg (p < 0.05), while that of the normotensive subjects showed no significant change. Test-retest correlations of each of the three methods were similar in magnitude, indicating a similar level of reliability. Test-retest correlations of the ambulatory standard deivations, however, were low, indicating a low reliability of this measure of daily pressure variability. These results suggest that the reproducibility of ambulatory pressures may be as good or better than that of home or clinic measurements. They also suggest that the average ambulatory pressure may be preferable as the measurement in clinical trials, since it may be less influenced by measurement anxiety, particularly in hypertensive subjects.",
author = "James, {G. D.} and Pickering, {T. G.} and Yee, {L. S.} and Harshfield, {Gregory A} and S. Riva and Laragh, {J. H.}",
year = "1988",
month = "1",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "11",
pages = "545--549",
journal = "Hypertension",
issn = "0194-911X",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "6 PART 1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The reproducibility of average ambulatory, home, and clinic pressures

AU - James, G. D.

AU - Pickering, T. G.

AU - Yee, L. S.

AU - Harshfield, Gregory A

AU - Riva, S.

AU - Laragh, J. H.

PY - 1988/1/1

Y1 - 1988/1/1

N2 - The reproducibility of ambulatory, home, and clinic blood pressures was compared in 13 untreated mildly hypertensive and 14 normotensive subjects. Each subject had two sets of daily ambulatory recordings, home self-measured readings (over 6 days), and clinic measurements taken 2 weeks apart. Comparisons over the 2 weeks within and among the methods of measurements were made using a repeated-measures analysis of variance. The results showed that there was no consistent average change in the ambulatory or home pressures and no change in clinic diastolic pressures, but the clinic systolic pressure of the hypertensive subjects dropped 6 mm Hg (p < 0.05), while that of the normotensive subjects showed no significant change. Test-retest correlations of each of the three methods were similar in magnitude, indicating a similar level of reliability. Test-retest correlations of the ambulatory standard deivations, however, were low, indicating a low reliability of this measure of daily pressure variability. These results suggest that the reproducibility of ambulatory pressures may be as good or better than that of home or clinic measurements. They also suggest that the average ambulatory pressure may be preferable as the measurement in clinical trials, since it may be less influenced by measurement anxiety, particularly in hypertensive subjects.

AB - The reproducibility of ambulatory, home, and clinic blood pressures was compared in 13 untreated mildly hypertensive and 14 normotensive subjects. Each subject had two sets of daily ambulatory recordings, home self-measured readings (over 6 days), and clinic measurements taken 2 weeks apart. Comparisons over the 2 weeks within and among the methods of measurements were made using a repeated-measures analysis of variance. The results showed that there was no consistent average change in the ambulatory or home pressures and no change in clinic diastolic pressures, but the clinic systolic pressure of the hypertensive subjects dropped 6 mm Hg (p < 0.05), while that of the normotensive subjects showed no significant change. Test-retest correlations of each of the three methods were similar in magnitude, indicating a similar level of reliability. Test-retest correlations of the ambulatory standard deivations, however, were low, indicating a low reliability of this measure of daily pressure variability. These results suggest that the reproducibility of ambulatory pressures may be as good or better than that of home or clinic measurements. They also suggest that the average ambulatory pressure may be preferable as the measurement in clinical trials, since it may be less influenced by measurement anxiety, particularly in hypertensive subjects.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0023711382&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0023711382&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 11

SP - 545

EP - 549

JO - Hypertension

JF - Hypertension

SN - 0194-911X

IS - 6 PART 1

ER -