Skip to content

Definition, measurement and diagnosis

TL;DR — Hypertension is defined by a number, and the number is generated by a procedure whose error is of the same order as the treatment effects being chased. Fitting a regular cuff to an arm needing an extra-large one raised mean systolic pressure by 19.5 mm Hg (95% CI 16.1–22.9) in a randomised crossover trial (Ishigami 2023, PMID 37548984); leaving an observer in the room raised automated readings by roughly 3.7/1.7 mm Hg in pooled analysis, with very high heterogeneity (Andreadis 2019, PMID 31290085); and 37.7–41.7% of US office systolic recordings still ended in zero in 2015–2019 against an unbiased expectation of 10–20% (Foti 2021, PMID 33246327). Out-of-office measurement is not a refinement but a different and better exposure: in 59,124 Spanish primary-care patients, 24-hour systolic pressure was more strongly associated with all-cause death (HR 1.41 per SD, 95% CI 1.36–1.47) than clinic pressure (1.18, 1.13–1.23), and clinic pressure lost its association after adjustment for the ambulatory value (1.04, 1.00–1.09) while the reverse was not true (Staplin 2023, PMID 37156250). The unresolved practical question is which trial target maps onto which measurement method, since SPRINT's <120 mm Hg was attained by unattended automated office measurement and is not numerically interchangeable with a routine clinic reading.

Definitions in current use

Body Hypertension Stage/grade structure Ambulatory equivalents
2025 AHA/ACC (PMID 40811516) ≥130/80 Elevated 120–129/<80; stage 1 130–139/80–89; stage 2 ≥140/90 Yes, ABPM/HBPM recommended for confirmation
2023 ESH (PMID 37345492) ≥140/90 Grades 1–3 24-h ≥130/80, day ≥135/85, night ≥120/70
2024 ESC (PMID 39210715) ≥140/90 New intermediate "elevated BP" 120–139/70–89 Yes
2020 ISH (PMID 32370572) ≥140/90 Grades 1–2, "essential" vs "optimal" care standards Yes where available
2025 Hypertension Canada (PMID 40419299) ≥130/80 Single definition, systolic target <130 Yes

Outcome-driven work supports the ambulatory numbers rather than deriving them by convention. In 11,152 people from 13 populations followed a median 13.9 years, the ambulatory thresholds conferring the same 10-year cardiovascular risk as office 130/80 and 140/90 mm Hg were approximately 125/75 and 130/80 (24-hour), 130/80 and 135/85 (daytime), 110/65 and 120/70 (nighttime) — close to what the 2017 ACC/AHA guideline had proposed (Cheng 2019, PMID 31378104).

Measurement error is a first-order problem

Cuff size. In a randomised crossover trial of 195 adults, using a regular cuff instead of the correct one changed mean systolic pressure by −3.6 mm Hg (95% CI −5.6 to −1.7) in people needing a small cuff, +4.8 mm Hg (3.0–6.6) in those needing large, and +19.5 mm Hg (16.1–22.9) in those needing extra-large (Ishigami 2023, PMID 37548984). The direction matters: routine one-size cuffing systematically over-diagnoses in people with larger arms. The finding provoked immediate published dispute over generalisability and technique (Palatini 2024, PMID 38372995; Gallagher 2024, PMID 38372976; Zuin 2024, PMID 38372978; authors' reply Ishigami 2024, PMID 38372969), and cuff sizing itself is unreliable at the level of arm-circumference landmarking (Oguaju 2024, PMID 38980266). Home devices compound it: cuff-size ranges vary substantially between manufacturers, so a "large" cuff from one brand is not a large cuff from another (Shahi 2023, PMID 37422909). A broader review sets out the oscillometric algorithm's other systematic vulnerabilities (Pilz 2024, PMID 39291896; Palatini 2025, PMID 40199977).

The observer. Automated office blood pressure taken with the patient alone reads lower than with an observer present: pooled −3.66 mm Hg systolic (95% CI −6.58 to −0.75) and −1.67 diastolic (−2.78 to −0.55), but with I² of 97.1% and 89%, so the pooled estimate is not usable as a fixed conversion factor (Andreadis 2019, PMID 31290085). In a single-centre study of 564 patients, unattended systolic pressure averaged 128.0±15.5 versus attended 134.5±19.9 mm Hg, yet the two correlated near-identically with left ventricular mass index (r = 0.194 vs 0.205) and carotid intima-media thickness — so the lower reading is not obviously the more informative one (Salvetti 2019, PMID 30686088). Similar attended-versus-unattended differences appear in real-life clinics (Bauer 2018, PMID 29255074) and in multicentre treated cohorts (Filipovský 2018, PMID 29334262). Whether being alone or being out of the consultation room is the operative variable has itself been tested (Armstrong 2015, PMID 26154710; Green 2022, PMID 35240678; Sánchez Bacaicoa 2025, PMID 41085208).

Digit preference. Terminal-digit rounding to zero persists at roughly twice the unbiased rate, is worse at first treatment visits, in patients ≥80, and when the reading is above threshold — i.e. worst exactly where it changes decisions (Foti 2021, PMID 33246327). It is long-documented (Hessel 1986, PMID 3957533; Nietert 2006, PMID 16448884), has been shown to distort epidemiological associations, and responds to quality-improvement programmes using automated devices (Kottke 2022, PMID 36044216). Selective recording of lower readings has been associated with higher subsequent mortality (Wingfield 2002, PMID 12205334).

Devices. Of 972 unique home devices for sale online in one country, 18.3% of upper-arm cuff devices, 8.0% of wrist-cuff devices and 0% of 532 wrist-band wearables were validated; validated devices cost more (median AUD 101.1 vs 67.4) (Picone 2020, PMID 32275193). Device accuracy in devices actually in patients' homes is correspondingly poor (Ruzicka 2016, PMID 27249056). Atrial fibrillation degrades oscillometric accuracy but automated devices can be repurposed to screen for it (Stergiou 2012, PMID 22914573; Kyriakoulis 2024, PMID 38602099).

Cuffless devices. A meta-analysis of 16 validation studies (15 devices, 974 participants) found pooled biases of 3.42 mm Hg systolic (95% CI −2.17 to 9.01) and 1.16 diastolic (−1.26 to 3.58) with I² >87%, and noted that most studies did not assess precision as ISO protocols require (Islam 2022, PMID 36713001). The European Society of Hypertension has issued a dedicated validation protocol for cuffless devices precisely because existing protocols do not test the failure modes that matter — calibration drift, posture, and behaviour between calibrations (Stergiou 2023, PMID 37303198). Reviews describe the field as promising but not yet fit for diagnosis (Bradley 2022, PMID 35136906; Hu 2023, PMID 37688763; Schutte 2024, PMID 38997475), and at least two published validation reports of consumer devices have since been retracted, which is itself part of the evidentiary picture.

Out-of-office measurement and the phenotypes it creates

Cross-classifying office and out-of-office pressure produces four states:

Phenotype Office BP Out-of-office BP Risk relative to normotension
Sustained normotension Normal Normal Reference
White-coat hypertension High Normal Untreated: CV events HR 1.36 (95% CI 1.03–2.00), all-cause death 1.33 (1.07–1.67), CV death 2.09 (1.23–4.48) (Cohen 2019, PMID 31181575)
Masked hypertension Normal High All-cause death HR 1.24 (1.12–1.37); CV death 1.37 (1.15–1.63) (Staplin 2023, PMID 37156250)
Sustained hypertension High High All-cause death HR 1.24 (1.15–1.32); CV death 1.38 (1.22–1.55) (Staplin 2023, PMID 37156250)

Two findings sharpen this. First, treated white-coat effect carries no detectable excess risk (CV events HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.91–1.39), whereas untreated white-coat hypertension does — so the two must not be conflated (Cohen 2019, PMID 31181575). Second, in the 59,124-patient Spanish registry, white-coat hypertension showed no excess all-cause or cardiovascular mortality at all, while masked and sustained hypertension both did (Staplin 2023, PMID 37156250). Older meta-analyses are more equivocal (Briasoulis 2016, PMID 26734955; Huang 2017, PMID 28253216; Fagard 2007, PMID 17921809), and in isolated systolic hypertension in older people the white-coat category behaves differently again (Franklin 2012, PMID 22252396). Masked hypertension's risk approaches that of sustained hypertension in most syntheses (Palla 2018, PMID 29379316; Zhu 2024, PMID 39722158), and masked uncontrolled hypertension in treated patients is prognostically important (Pierdomenico 2018, PMID 30354717).

Masked hypertension is not rare. Imputing from four US cohorts with ambulatory monitoring onto NHANES, an estimated 22.7% of US adults (53.7 million) had masked asleep hypertension under 2017 ACC/AHA thresholds and 13.3% (31.5 million) had it in isolation, without high awake pressure (Li 2021, PMID 33112362). Prevalence is higher in men, Black adults, people with diabetes, obesity or chronic kidney disease (Li 2021, PMID 33112362; Babu 2019, PMID 31111326). Importantly, masked uncontrolled hypertension is not explained by covert medication non-adherence (Siddiqui 2019, PMID 31327263).

Which index predicts best

  • In 11,135 adults from Europe, Asia and South America followed a median 13.8 years, nighttime and 24-hour systolic pressure retained significant associations with death and cardiovascular events after adjustment for every other blood-pressure index, while the reverse did not hold; incremental AUC gains were nonetheless small (0.0013–0.0075) (Yang 2019, PMID 31386134).
  • Nighttime systolic pressure was 591% as informative about all-cause death and 604% as informative about cardiovascular death as clinic systolic pressure in the Spanish registry (Staplin 2023, PMID 37156250).
  • Home and ambulatory monitoring predict outcome about equally well (pooled HR per 10 mm Hg systolic: home 1.36, 95% CI 1.23–1.50; 24-hour ambulatory 1.38, 1.22–1.57), and both beat office measurement (Kollias 2024, PMID 38164947).
  • Time-in-target-range from ambulatory monitoring refines this further: standardised HRs of 0.57 (0.46–0.71) for mortality and 0.30 (0.23–0.39) for cardiovascular endpoints across 14,230 people in 14 cohorts, with office pressure misclassifying most participants' control status (Zhang 2025, PMID 40249369).
  • The historical case for ambulatory monitoring rests on population cohorts such as Ohasama-type designs (Hansen 2005, PMID 15753229) and the IDACO consortium (Asayama 2023, PMID 36737461).

Note for auditors: a widely cited NEJM analysis of the same Spanish registry (PMID 29669232) is flagged in PubMed as a retracted publication and is deliberately not used here; the 2023 Lancet analysis (PMID 37156250) is the appropriate source.

Nocturnal pressure and dipping

Night-time pressure is the most prognostic single index (Yang 2019, PMID 31386134; Staplin 2023, PMID 37156250), and non-dipping is common, reproducible only moderately, and mechanistically heterogeneous — volume overload, sleep fragmentation, autonomic failure and renal disease all produce it (Huart 2023, PMID 36606502; Tang 2024, PMID 37955827). Whether the prognostic signal belongs to the dipping ratio or simply to the absolute nocturnal level is unsettled; the ratio adds little once nocturnal level is in the model (Yang 2019, PMID 31386134). Extreme dipping is associated with events strongly and age-dependently (Palatini 2020, PMID 31865788), and how sleep intervals are defined materially changes who is classified as a non-dipper (Mortazavi 2023, PMID 37310958). The European Society of Hypertension has issued a dedicated position paper (Parati 2025, PMID 40509714). Nocturnal dipping also tracks disease processes rather than being a fixed trait — it is impaired in primary aldosteronism (Liang 2026, PMID 41804894) and predicts chronic kidney disease progression (Park 2024, PMID 37452154; Borrelli 2023, PMID 35709922).

Self-monitoring as a diagnostic and management tool

Self-monitoring alone does not lower blood pressure. In an individual-patient meta-analysis of 25 trials (7,138 participants with primary-outcome data), self-monitoring reduced 12-month clinic systolic pressure by 3.2 mm Hg (95% CI 1.6–4.9) overall — but by only 1.0 mm Hg (−1.2 to 3.3) when unaccompanied, and by 6.1 mm Hg (3.2–9.0) when combined with intensive support; with little or no co-intervention there was no ambulatory effect at all (Tucker 2017, PMID 28926573). TASMINH2 and TASMINH4 give the interventional counterpart: self-titration and telemonitoring-supported titration both lowered pressure versus usual care (McManus 2010, PMID 20619448; McManus 2018, PMID 29499873).

Diagnostic sequence

  1. Standardised office measurement with a validated device and correctly sized cuff, seated rest, multiple readings averaged (Ishigami 2023, PMID 37548984; Picone 2020, PMID 32275193).
  2. Confirmation out of the office — ambulatory preferred where available, home an acceptable equal on prognostic grounds (Kollias 2024, PMID 38164947).
  3. Phenotype assignment, including nocturnal pressure (Li 2021, PMID 33112362).
  4. Search for secondary causes where indicated → secondary hypertension.
  5. Global risk assessment rather than pressure alone → risk and outcomes.

Special situations: isolated systolic hypertension in the young is often a high-stroke-volume, low-central-pressure phenotype with a different prognosis from later isolated systolic hypertension (Palatini 2018, PMID 29570514; Saladini 2017, PMID 28374153; Saladini 2011, PMID 21659824), and isolated diastolic hypertension in young and middle-aged people has repeatedly looked prognostically benign (Fang 1995, PMID 7649569; Chrysant 2020, PMID 32594846). Where automated office measurement is proposed as a screening tool in low-resource settings, its diagnostic accuracy has been tested directly (Etyang 2019, PMID 31587589; Lucinde 2025, PMID 40970526).

Open questions

  • What is the correct numerical mapping between the unattended automated office pressure used in SPRINT and the readings clinicians actually take? Pooled attended-versus-unattended differences are too heterogeneous to serve as a conversion (Andreadis 2019, PMID 31290085), yet organ-damage correlations are similar for both (Salvetti 2019, PMID 30686088).
  • Does white-coat hypertension carry excess risk or not? Meta-analysis of cohorts says yes for untreated people (Cohen 2019, PMID 31181575); the largest single registry says no (Staplin 2023, PMID 37156250).
  • Should nocturnal pressure be a routine treatment target given that isolated masked asleep hypertension affects an estimated 31.5 million US adults? The 2026-09-01 searches located nighttime-dosing and nocturnal-pressure trials, but no trial randomising a nocturnal target and powered for cardiovascular outcomes (Li 2021, PMID 33112362).
  • Can a cuffless device be validated for diagnosis rather than trend-tracking, and what would that protocol have to test? (Stergiou 2023, PMID 37303198; Islam 2022, PMID 36713001)
  • Why does digit preference remain roughly twice its unbiased rate a decade after automated devices became cheap? (Foti 2021, PMID 33246327; Kottke 2022, PMID 36044216)

References

  1. Ishigami J, et al. Effects of Cuff Size on the Accuracy of Blood Pressure Readings: The Cuff(SZ) Randomized Crossover Trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2023;183:1061-1068. PMID 37548984
  2. Andreadis EA, et al. Attended Versus Unattended Automated Office Blood Pressure: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. High Blood Press Cardiovasc Prev. 2019;26:293-303. PMID 31290085
  3. Foti KE, et al. Digit Preference in Office Blood Pressure Measurements, United States 2015-2019. Am J Hypertens. 2021;34:521-530. PMID 33246327
  4. Staplin N, et al. Relationship between clinic and ambulatory blood pressure and mortality. Lancet. 2023;401:2041-2050. PMID 37156250
  5. Writing Committee Members. 2025 AHA/ACC Guideline for High Blood Pressure in Adults. Hypertension. 2025;82:e212-e316. PMID 40811516
  6. Mancia G, et al. 2023 ESH Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension. J Hypertens. 2023;41:1874-2071. PMID 37345492
  7. McEvoy JW, et al. 2024 ESC Guidelines for the management of elevated blood pressure and hypertension. Eur Heart J. 2024;45:3912-4018. PMID 39210715
  8. Unger T, et al. 2020 International Society of Hypertension Global Hypertension Practice Guidelines. Hypertension. 2020;75:1334-1357. PMID 32370572
  9. Goupil R, et al. Hypertension Canada guideline. CMAJ. 2025;197:E549-E564. PMID 40419299
  10. Cheng YB, et al. Outcome-Driven Thresholds for Ambulatory Blood Pressure. Hypertension. 2019;74:776-783. PMID 31378104
  11. Palatini P. Pitfalls of Cuff Size and Blood Pressure Measurement. JAMA Intern Med. 2024;184:447-448. PMID 38372995
  12. Gallagher BD, et al. Pitfalls of Cuff Size and Blood Pressure Measurement. JAMA Intern Med. 2024;184:448-449. PMID 38372976
  13. Zuin M, et al. Pitfalls of Cuff Size and Blood Pressure Measurement. JAMA Intern Med. 2024;184:448. PMID 38372978
  14. Ishigami J, et al. Pitfalls of Cuff Size and Blood Pressure Measurement-Reply. JAMA Intern Med. 2024;184:449-450. PMID 38372969
  15. Oguaju B, et al. Inter-observer reliability and anatomical landmarks for arm circumference. J Clin Hypertens. 2024;26:867-871. PMID 38980266
  16. Shahi S, et al. Cuff Size Variation Across Manufacturers of Home Blood Pressure Devices. Am J Hypertens. 2023;36:532-535. PMID 37422909
  17. Pilz N, et al. Cuff-based blood pressure measurement: challenges and solutions. Blood Press. 2024;33:2402368. PMID 39291896
  18. Palatini P. Challenges and pitfalls of cuff oscillometric blood pressure measurement. Hypertens Res. 2025;48:1993-1996. PMID 40199977
  19. Salvetti M, et al. Unattended Versus Attended Blood Pressure Measurement. Hypertension. 2019;73:736-742. PMID 30686088
  20. Bauer F, et al. Attended Versus Unattended Blood Pressure Measurement in a Real Life Setting. Hypertension. 2018;71:243-249. PMID 29255074
  21. Filipovský J, et al. A multicentre study on unattended automated office blood pressure measurement in treated hypertensive patients. Blood Press. 2018;27:188-193. PMID 29334262
  22. Armstrong D, et al. Automated office blood pressure - being alone and not location is what matters most. Blood Press Monit. 2015;20:204-8. PMID 26154710
  23. Green BB, et al. Automated Office Blood Pressure and the Impact of Attendance and Rest on Diagnostic Accuracy. Am J Hypertens. 2022;35:638-646. PMID 35240678
  24. Sánchez Bacaicoa M, et al. Automated Office Blood Pressure Measurements in Waiting Room or Isolated Room. J Am Heart Assoc. 2025;14:e038011. PMID 41085208
  25. Hessel PA. Terminal digit preference in blood pressure measurements. Int J Epidemiol. 1986;15:122-5. PMID 3957533
  26. Nietert PJ, et al. Effect of terminal digit preference on blood pressure measurement and treatment in primary care. Am J Hypertens. 2006;19:147-52. PMID 16448884
  27. Kottke TE, et al. Association of an Automated Blood Pressure Measurement Quality Improvement Program With Terminal Digit Preference. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5:e2229098. PMID 36044216
  28. Wingfield D, et al. Selective recording in blood pressure readings may increase subsequent mortality. QJM. 2002;95:571-7. PMID 12205334
  29. Picone DS, et al. Nonvalidated Home Blood Pressure Devices Dominate the Online Marketplace in Australia. Hypertension. 2020;75:1593-1599. PMID 32275193
  30. Ruzicka M, et al. How Accurate Are Home Blood Pressure Devices in Use? PLoS One. 2016;11:e0155677. PMID 27249056
  31. Stergiou GS, et al. Automated blood pressure measurement in atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Hypertens. 2012;30:2074-82. PMID 22914573
  32. Kyriakoulis KG, et al. Atrial Fibrillation Screening During Routine Automated Office, Home, and Ambulatory Blood Pressure Measurement. Hypertension. 2024;81:1477-1488. PMID 38602099
  33. Islam SMS, et al. Wearable cuffless blood pressure monitoring devices: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Heart J Digit Health. 2022;3:323-337. PMID 36713001
  34. Stergiou GS, et al. European Society of Hypertension recommendations for the validation of cuffless blood pressure measuring devices. J Hypertens. 2023;41:2074-2087. PMID 37303198
  35. Bradley CK, et al. Cuffless Blood Pressure Devices. Am J Hypertens. 2022;35:380-387. PMID 35136906
  36. Hu JR, et al. The Promise and Illusion of Continuous, Cuffless Blood Pressure Monitoring. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2023;25:1139-1149. PMID 37688763
  37. Schutte AE. Wearable cuffless blood pressure tracking: when will they be good enough? J Hum Hypertens. 2024;38:669-672. PMID 38997475
  38. Cohen JB, et al. Cardiovascular Events and Mortality in White Coat Hypertension. Ann Intern Med. 2019;170:853-862. PMID 31181575
  39. Briasoulis A, et al. White-coat hypertension and cardiovascular events: a meta-analysis. J Hypertens. 2016;34:593-9. PMID 26734955
  40. Huang Y, et al. White-coat hypertension is a risk factor for cardiovascular diseases and total mortality. J Hypertens. 2017;35:677-688. PMID 28253216
  41. Fagard RH, et al. Incidence of cardiovascular events in white-coat, masked and sustained hypertension versus true normotension. J Hypertens. 2007;25:2193-8. PMID 17921809
  42. Franklin SS, et al. Significance of white-coat hypertension in older persons with isolated systolic hypertension. Hypertension. 2012;59:564-71. PMID 22252396
  43. Palla M, et al. Masked hypertension and cardiovascular outcomes: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Integr Blood Press Control. 2018;11:11-24. PMID 29379316
  44. Zhu H, et al. Prevalence and Cardio-Renal Comorbidities of Masked Hypertension: A Meta-Analysis. J Evid Based Med. 2024;17:833-842. PMID 39722158
  45. Pierdomenico SD, et al. Prognostic Value of Masked Uncontrolled Hypertension. Hypertension. 2018;72:862-869. PMID 30354717
  46. Li S, et al. Estimated Prevalence of Masked Asleep Hypertension in US Adults. JAMA Cardiol. 2021;6:568-573. PMID 33112362
  47. Babu M, et al. Masked Hypertension in CKD: Increased Prevalence and Risk. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2019;21:58. PMID 31111326
  48. Siddiqui M, et al. Masked Uncontrolled Hypertension Is Not Attributable to Medication Nonadherence. Hypertension. 2019;74:652-659. PMID 31327263
  49. Yang WY, et al. Association of Office and Ambulatory Blood Pressure With Mortality and Cardiovascular Outcomes. JAMA. 2019;322:409-420. PMID 31386134
  50. Kollias A, et al. Prognostic value of home versus ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. J Hypertens. 2024;42:385-392. PMID 38164947
  51. Zhang DY, et al. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, European guideline targets, and cardiovascular outcomes. Eur Heart J. 2025;46:2974-2987. PMID 40249369
  52. Hansen TW, et al. Ambulatory blood pressure and mortality: a population-based study. Hypertension. 2005;45:499-504. PMID 15753229
  53. Asayama K, et al. What did we learn from the International Databases on Ambulatory and Home Blood Pressure? Hypertens Res. 2023;46:934-949. PMID 36737461
  54. Huart J, et al. Pathophysiology of the Nondipping Blood Pressure Pattern. Hypertension. 2023;80:719-729. PMID 36606502
  55. Tang A, et al. Non-Dipping Blood Pressure or Nocturnal Hypertension: Does One Matter More? Curr Hypertens Rep. 2024;26:21-30. PMID 37955827
  56. Palatini P, et al. Association of Extreme Nocturnal Dipping With Cardiovascular Events Strongly Depends on Age. Hypertension. 2020;75:324-330. PMID 31865788
  57. Mortazavi BJ, et al. Classification of blood pressure during sleep impacts designation of nocturnal nondipping. PLOS Digit Health. 2023;2:e0000267. PMID 37310958
  58. Parati G, et al. Nocturnal blood pressure: pathophysiology, measurement and clinical implications. J Hypertens. 2025;43:1296-1318. PMID 40509714
  59. Liang NP, et al. Aldosterone and Impaired Nocturnal Blood Pressure Decline in Primary Aldosteronism. J Am Heart Assoc. 2026;15:e044976. PMID 41804894
  60. Park CH, et al. Nocturnal systolic blood pressure dipping and progression of chronic kidney disease. Hypertens Res. 2024;47:215-224. PMID 37452154
  61. Borrelli S, et al. Dipping Status, Ambulatory Blood Pressure Control, Cardiovascular Disease, and Kidney Disease Progression. Am J Kidney Dis. 2023;81:15-24.e1. PMID 35709922
  62. Tucker KL, et al. Self-monitoring of blood pressure in hypertension: individual patient data meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2017;14:e1002389. PMID 28926573
  63. McManus RJ, et al. Telemonitoring and self-management in the control of hypertension (TASMINH2). Lancet. 2010;376:163-72. PMID 20619448
  64. McManus RJ, et al. Efficacy of self-monitored blood pressure, with or without telemonitoring (TASMINH4). Lancet. 2018;391:949-959. PMID 29499873
  65. Palatini P, et al. Isolated systolic hypertension in the young: ESH position paper. J Hypertens. 2018;36:1222-1236. PMID 29570514
  66. Saladini F, et al. Isolated Systolic Hypertension in Young Individuals. High Blood Press Cardiovasc Prev. 2017;24:133-139. PMID 28374153
  67. Saladini F, et al. Isolated systolic hypertension of young-to-middle-age individuals. J Hypertens. 2011;29:1311-9. PMID 21659824
  68. Fang J, et al. Isolated diastolic hypertension. Hypertension. 1995;26:377-82. PMID 7649569
  69. Chrysant SG. The clinical significance of isolated diastolic hypertension. Postgrad Med. 2020;132:624-628. PMID 32594846
  70. Etyang AO, et al. Diagnostic Accuracy of Unattended Automated Office Blood Pressure Measurement in Screening for Hypertension in Kenya. Hypertension. 2019;74:1490-1498. PMID 31587589
  71. Lucinde RK, et al. Diagnostic Performance of Unattended Automated Office Blood Pressure Measurement. J Am Heart Assoc. 2025;14:e043957. PMID 40970526
  72. Banegas JR, et al. Relationship between Clinic and Ambulatory Blood-Pressure Measurements and Mortality. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:1509-1520. Retracted publication; not used as evidence. PMID 29669232