Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorEriksen, Bjørn Odvar
dc.contributor.advisorToralf, Melsom
dc.contributor.authorSmåbrekke, Silje
dc.date.accessioned2022-05-31T05:34:37Z
dc.date.available2022-05-31T05:34:37Z
dc.date.issued2019-05-29en
dc.description.abstractBackground: Ambulatory blood pressure measurements are frequently lower compared to office measurements. Our aims were to investigate the relationship between office blood pressure measurements and ambulatory measurements and to quantify the difference between the two methods. Methods: This study included 1608 participants aged 50 – 62 years from the municipality of Tromsø, Norway. Office blood pressure measurements and ambulatory measurements were compared using the Bland-Altman plot, Deming regression, and paired sample t-test. The Pearson correlation coefficient was also calculated. Results: The mean (standard deviation) daytime ambulatory systolic and diastolic blood pressure were 130.2 mmHg (13.2) and 82.1 mmHg (8.7), respectively. The mean systolic and diastolic observed office blood pressure was 129.6 mmHg (17.7) and 83.4 mmHg (9.8), respectively. Office diastolic blood pressure was significantly higher than ambulatory diastolic blood pressure (P<0.001). In the Bland-Altman plot, office systolic blood pressure was on average 0.53 mmHg lower than daytime ambulatory systolic blood pressure, and office diastolic blood pressure was on average 1.33 mmHg higher than daytime ambulatory diastolic pressure. In Deming regression, for each unit increase in ambulatory systolic blood pressure and ambulatory diastolic blood pressure, office systolic blood pressure increased with 0.68 mmHg (P<0.01) and office diastolic blood pressure increased with 0.85 mmHg (P<0.01), respectively. The Pearson R correlation between daytime ambulatory and office systolic blood pressure, and daytime ambulatory and office diastolic blood pressure was 0.73 (P<0.01) and 0.72 (P<0.01), respectively. Conclusion: We found significantly higher observed office diastolic blood pressure compared to ambulatory diastolic blood pressure. However, the difference was small and probably not clinically significant for the individual patient. The blood pressure measurements conducted by trained study nurses are not directly comparable to measurements in the doctor’s office. In future studies, measurements in the doctor’s office should be compared to office blood pressure measurements conducted by trained research personnel.en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10037/25308
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherUiT Norges arktiske universitetno
dc.publisherUiT The Arctic University of Norwayen
dc.rights.holderCopyright 2019 The Author(s)
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0en_US
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)en_US
dc.subject.courseIDMED-3950
dc.subjectVDP::Medisinske Fag: 700::Klinisk medisinske fag: 750::Nefrologi, urologi: 772en_US
dc.subjectVDP::Medical disciplines: 700::Clinical medical disciplines: 750::Nephrology, urology: 772en_US
dc.titleA Comparison Between Office Blood Pressure Measurements and Ambulatory Blood Pressure Measurements in the Healthy Middle-Aged General Populationen_US
dc.typeMaster thesisen
dc.typeMastergradsoppgaveno


File(s) in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)