European journal of public health · 2013
Home blood pressure measurement as a screening tool for hypertension in a web-based worksite health promotion programme.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Niessen Maurice A J, van der Hoeven Niels V, van den Born Bert-Jan H, van Kalken Coen K, Kraaijenhagen Roderik A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Guidelines on home blood pressure measurement (HBPM) recommend taking at least 12 measurements. For screening purposes, however, it is preferred to reduce this number. We therefore derived and validated cut-off values to determine hypertension status after the first duplicate reading of a HBPM series in a web-based worksite health promotion programme.
METHOD: Nine hundred forty-five employees were included in the derivation and 528 in the validation cohort, which was divided into a normal (n = 297) and increased cardiometabolic risk subgroup (n = 231), and a subgroup with a history of hypertension (n = 98). Six duplicate home measurements were collected during three consecutive days. Systolic and diastolic readings at the first duplicate measurement were used as predictors for hypertension in a multivariate logistic model. Cut-off values were determined using receiver operating characteristics analysis.
RESULTS: Upper (≥ 150 or ≥ 95 mmHg) and lower limit (<135 and <80 mmHg) cut-off values were derived to confirm or reject presence of hypertension after one duplicate reading. The area under the curve was 0.94 (standard error 0.01, 95% confidence interval 0.93-0.95). In 62.5% of participants, hypertension status was determined, with 1.1% false positive and 4.7% false negatives. Performance was similar in participants with high and low cardiometabolic risk, but worse in participants with a history of hypertension (10.4% false negatives).
CONCLUSION: One duplicate home reading is sufficient to accurately assess hypertension status in 62.5% of participants, leaving 37.5% in which the whole HBPM series needs to be completed. HBPM can thus be reliably used as screening tool for hypertension in a working population.
METHOD: Nine hundred forty-five employees were included in the derivation and 528 in the validation cohort, which was divided into a normal (n = 297) and increased cardiometabolic risk subgroup (n = 231), and a subgroup with a history of hypertension (n = 98). Six duplicate home measurements were collected during three consecutive days. Systolic and diastolic readings at the first duplicate measurement were used as predictors for hypertension in a multivariate logistic model. Cut-off values were determined using receiver operating characteristics analysis.
RESULTS: Upper (≥ 150 or ≥ 95 mmHg) and lower limit (<135 and <80 mmHg) cut-off values were derived to confirm or reject presence of hypertension after one duplicate reading. The area under the curve was 0.94 (standard error 0.01, 95% confidence interval 0.93-0.95). In 62.5% of participants, hypertension status was determined, with 1.1% false positive and 4.7% false negatives. Performance was similar in participants with high and low cardiometabolic risk, but worse in participants with a history of hypertension (10.4% false negatives).
CONCLUSION: One duplicate home reading is sufficient to accurately assess hypertension status in 62.5% of participants, leaving 37.5% in which the whole HBPM series needs to be completed. HBPM can thus be reliably used as screening tool for hypertension in a working population.