↓ Skip to main content

Measurement of blood pressure for the diagnosis and management of hypertension in different ethnic groups: one size fits all

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Measurement of blood pressure for the diagnosis and management of hypertension in different ethnic groups: one size fits all
Published in
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12872-017-0491-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paramjit Gill, M. Sayeed Haque, Una Martin, Jonathan Mant, Mohammed A. Mohammed, Gurdip Heer, Amanpreet Johal, Ramandeep Kaur, Claire Schwartz, Sally Wood, Sheila M. Greenfield, Richard J. McManus

Abstract

Hypertension is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease and prevalence varies by ethnic group. The diagnosis and management of blood pressure are informed by guidelines largely based on data from white populations. This study addressed whether accuracy of blood pressure measurement in terms of diagnosis of hypertension varies by ethnicity by comparing two measurement modalities (clinic blood pressure and home monitoring) with a reference standard of ambulatory BP monitoring in three ethnic groups. Cross-sectional population study (June 2010 - December 2012) with patients (40-75 years) of white British, South Asian and African Caribbean background with and without a previous diagnosis of hypertension recruited from 28 primary care practices. The study compared the test performance of clinic BP (using various protocols) and home-monitoring (1 week) with a reference standard of mean daytime ambulatory measurements using a threshold of 140/90 mmHg for clinic and 135/85 mmHg for out of office measurement. A total of 551 participants had complete data of whom 246 were white British, 147 South Asian and 158 African Caribbean. No consistent difference in accuracy of methods of blood pressure measurement was observed between ethnic groups with or without a prior diagnosis of hypertension: for people without hypertension, clinic measurement using three different methodologies had high specificity (75-97%) but variable sensitivity (33-65%) whereas home monitoring had sensitivity of 68-88% and specificity of 64-80%. For people with hypertension, detection of a raised blood pressure using clinic measurements had sensitivities of 34-69% with specificity of 73-92% and home monitoring had sensitivity (81-88%) and specificity (55-65%). For people without hypertension, ABPM remains the choice for diagnosing hypertension compared to the other modes of BP measurement regardless of ethnicity. Differences in accuracy of home monitoring and clinic monitoring (higher sensitivity of the former; higher specificity of the latter) were also not affected by ethnicity.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Israel 1 5%
Unknown 20 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 29%
Student > Master 3 14%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Librarian 2 10%
Unspecified 2 10%
Other 6 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 52%
Unspecified 3 14%
Social Sciences 2 10%
Computer Science 1 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Other 3 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 November 2018.
All research outputs
#7,529,483
of 13,381,075 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
#317
of 850 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,805
of 345,665 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,381,075 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 850 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 345,665 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them