Importance: Hypertension is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease and can be modified through lifestyle and pharmacological interventions to reduce cardiovascular events and mortality.

Objective: To systematically review the benefits and harms of screening and confirmatory blood pressure measurements in adults, to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Data Sources: MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Collaboration Central Registry of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL; surveillance through March 26, 2021.

Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized controlled intervention studies for effectiveness of screening; accuracy studies for screening and confirmatory measurements (ambulatory blood pressure monitoring as the reference standard); RCTs and nonrandomized controlled intervention studies and observational studies for harms of screening and confirmation.

Data Extraction and Synthesis: Independent critical appraisal and data abstraction; meta-analyses and qualitative syntheses.

Main Outcomes and Measures: Mortality; cardiovascular events; quality of life; sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values; harms of screening.

Results: A total of 52 studies (N = 215,534) were identified in this systematic review. One cluster RCT (n = 140,642) of a multicomponent intervention including hypertension screening reported fewer annual cardiovascular-related hospital admissions for cardiovascular disease in the intervention group compared with the control group (difference, 3.02 per 1000 people; rate ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.86-0.97]). Meta-analysis of 15 studies (n = 11,309) of initial office-based blood pressure screening showed a pooled sensitivity of 0.54 (95% CI, 0.37-0.70) and specificity of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.84-0.95), with considerable clinical and statistical heterogeneity. Eighteen studies (n = 57,128) of various confirmatory blood pressure measurement modalities were heterogeneous. Meta-analysis of 8 office-based confirmation studies (n = 53,183) showed a pooled sensitivity of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.68-0.88) and specificity of 0.55 (95% CI, 0.42-0.66). Meta-analysis of 4 home-based confirmation studies (n = 1001) showed a pooled sensitivity of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.76-0.90) and a specificity of 0.60 (95% CI, 0.48-0.71). Thirteen studies (n = 5150) suggested that screening was associated with no decrement in quality of life or psychological distress; evidence on absenteeism was mixed. Ambulatory blood pressure measurement was associated with temporary sleep disturbance and bruising.

Conclusions and Relevance: Screening using office-based blood pressure measurement had major accuracy limitations, including misdiagnosis; however, direct harms of measurement were minimal. Research is needed to determine optimal screening and confirmatory algorithms for clinical practice.

Hypertension is highly prevalent and one of the most important risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD).^1-3 Blood pressure can be modified with lifestyle interventions,^4-6 and good-quality randomized clinical trials (RCTs) demonstrate the effectiveness of antihypertensive pharmacological treatments to reduce CVD and total mortality.^7,8 While office-based screening for hypertension in adults has been standard of care in the US for decades,⁹ office-based methods may misclassify individuals (white coat or masked hypertension). Contemporary research in blood pressure measurement has considered the potential benefits of out-of-office or novel office-based measurement modalities.

The aim of this updated systematic review was to inform an update of the 2015 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for hypertension in adults (A recommendation).¹⁰ This systematic review addressed the benefits and harms of screening for hypertension in adults, test accuracy of initial office-based screening measurements, and methods of confirmatory blood pressure measurement in those who initially screen positive.

Scope of Review

This review addressed 4 key questions (KQs) as shown in Figure 1. Methodological details including study selection, a list of excluded studies, additional data analysis methods, and sensitivity analyses are available in the full evidence report.¹¹

Data Sources and Searches

MEDLINE, PubMed (publisher supplied records), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL were searched through August 17, 2019, to identify literature published after the previous review for the USPSTF.¹² The scope of this update differs from that of the 2015 review¹² in that this review analyzed specificity and sensitivity of hypertension screening and confirmation, required ambulatory blood pressure measurement as the reference standard, included patients with diabetes, and did not address prognosis associated with various blood pressure measurement modalities. All included studies in the prior review and a subset of previously excluded studies were also evaluated, as well as reference lists of other systematic reviews and individual patient–data meta-analyses.^13-15 ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for relevant ongoing trials. Active surveillance was conducted through March 26, 2021, via article alerts and targeted journal searches to identify major studies that might affect the conclusions or understanding of the evidence. No new studies were identified.

Study Selection

Investigators reviewed 21,741 unique citations and 544 full-text articles against a priori eligibility criteria (Figure 2). All studies were required to enroll untreated adults or stratify results by treatment status and to have been conducted in countries rated as “very high” on the 2015 Human Development Index.¹⁶ Eligible populations for KQ2 (initial screening) were unselected based on blood pressure, whereas KQ3 populations (confirmatory screening) were preselected for having at least 1 elevated blood pressure measurement identified by clinic-based screening.

For KQ1 (screening), RCTs and nonrandomized controlled intervention studies were included that reported changes in health outcomes as a result of screening for hypertension compared with no screening. Eligible health outcomes were all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, cardiovascular disease events, symptomatic peripheral artery disease, vascular dementia, end-stage renal disease, and quality of life.

For KQs 2 and 3 (test accuracy), test accuracy studies comparing an initial office blood pressure measurement (OBPM) (KQ2) or confirmatory measurement modality (KQ3) with any ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) reference standard were included. Attended and unattended automated office-based blood pressure (AOBP) measurements were eligible OBPM subtypes considered for all questions. The selection of the ABPM reference standard was based on a 2015 systematic review conducted for the USPSTF that concluded that ABPM was associated with cardiovascular events independently of OBPM and thus could serve as a reference standard.¹² Other investigators have confirmed this finding.¹⁷

Confirmatory methods examined in KQ3 included repeated OBPM, self-OBPM (measurement performed by a patient in the office setting), home blood pressure measurement (HBPM), or kiosk. For KQ2a and KQ3a, included studies reported accuracy of protocol variations compared with an ABPM reference standard (eg, more vs fewer OBPM measures, more vs fewer days of HBPM). Studies needed to report sensitivity and specificity or provide enough data to calculate these values.

For KQ4 (harms), RCTs, nonrandomized controlled intervention studies, and cohort studies were included for the outcomes of quality of life, psychological effects of labeling, and absenteeism. Cross-sectional studies were additionally included for the outcome of ABPM tolerability.

Data Extraction and Quality Assessment

Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality of eligible studies. Disagreements were resolved by consensus and, if needed, consultation with a third reviewer. Each study was assigned a quality rating of “good,” “fair,” or “poor,” according to the USPSTF’s study design–specific criteria.¹⁸ Studies rated poor quality because of serious methodological shortcomings were excluded.¹⁸ One reviewer abstracted descriptive and outcome data from each included study into standardized evidence tables; a second checked for accuracy and completeness.

Data Synthesis and Analysis

Results for KQ1 and KQ4 were analyzed qualitatively because of the small number of included studies reporting individual outcomes.

For test accuracy studies (KQ2 and KQ3), the primary outcomes of interest were sensitivity and specificity. For quantitative pooling, only studies that used both systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) in their definition of hypertension were included because of relevance to current clinical practice. Because there is a lack of consensus on thresholds recommended by guidelines, thresholds were selected based on values most commonly reported in primary studies: 140/90 mm Hg for OBPM, 135/85 mm Hg for daytime ABPM, 130/80 for 24-hour ABPM, and 135/85 mm Hg for HBPM. Additional results for less commonly reported thresholds are available in the full evidence report.¹¹ In quantitative analysis of KQ2 (initial screening), only studies measuring OBPM at a single visit were included; 2 additional studies measuring blood pressure at multiple visits were included in a sensitivity analysis.^19,20 Results for KQ3 (confirmatory measurement) were stratified by the type of confirmatory measure (repeat OBPM, HBPM, self-OBPM, AOBP, and kiosk). Data were sufficient for quantitative syntheses for OBPM and HBPM modalities only; other modalities were qualitatively synthesized. For all pooled analyses, a bivariate model was used to model sensitivity and specificity simultaneously, thus accounting for the correlation between these variables.

Stata version 15.1 (StataCorp) was used for all analyses. All significance testing was 2-sided, and results were considered statistically significant if the P value was .05 or less.

The aggregate strength of evidence was assessed for each KQ using the approach described in the Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews, based on the number, quality, and size of studies and the consistency and precision of results between studies.²¹

In total, 52 studies reported in 81 articles were included (Figure 2).^19,20,22-100 For all KQs, additional descriptive and outcome data are available in the full report.

Benefits of Screening

Key Question 1. Does screening for hypertension in adults improve health outcomes?

There were no population-based trials comparing hypertension screening with no screening. One good-quality community-based cluster RCT (n = 140,642) conducted in Canada examined the effectiveness of a multicomponent CVD health promotion program on CVD health outcomes when hypertension screening was the primary intervention.⁴⁷ The community clusters received either the Cardiovascular Health Awareness Program (CHAP) intervention or no intervention. In the CHAP communities, residents 65 years and older were invited to participate in community pharmacy-based blood pressure screenings using an automated instrument and complete a standardized risk profile. Participants received their risk profile, risk-specific educational materials, and local community resource information. At 1-year follow-up, the intervention communities had a reduction in the number of hospital admissions per 1000 for composite events (rate ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.86-0.97]). There were 3.02 fewer annual hospital admissions for CVD per 1000 persons in the intervention group compared with the control group (intervention group, –2.25 per 1000 persons; control group, 0.77 per 1000 persons). There were no statistically significant differences in all-cause mortality among admitted residents (rate ratio, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.92-1.03]; intervention group, –1.47 per 1000 persons; control group, 1.42 per 1000 persons) or in-hospital cardiovascular mortality (rate ratio, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.73-1.01]; intervention group, –0.47 per 1000 persons; control group, 0.2 per 1000 persons).

Test Accuracy

Key Question 2. What is the accuracy of OBPM during a single encounter as initial screening for hypertension compared with the reference standard (ABPM)?

Twenty fair- to good-quality studies (n = 12,614) examined the test accuracy of OBPM for initial screening for hypertension compared with ABPM.^{19,20,23,26,29,32,35-38,42,43,45,46,49,54-56,61-63,67,68,70,75-78,80,86,87,95-97} Participants in the studies were primarily recruited from community-based samples. Only 5 were conducted in the US. Overall, participants represented a wide range of demographic and clinical characteristics, including a large range of blood pressures. The prevalence of hypertension as defined by ABPM in the included studies reflected population heterogeneity and ranged from 12.6%⁵⁴ to 88.9%.⁷⁰

Index test measurement protocols were heterogeneous and deviated somewhat from current commonly performed protocols in US practice. Studies mostly used mercury sphygmomanometers with blood pressure measured by the manual auscultatory method, had participants rest for 5 minutes prior to measurement, and used the mean of multiple measurements (up to 9 measurements) at a single sitting. Most other protocol characteristics were sparsely or variably reported. Studies most commonly used an office blood pressure of greater than 140/90 mm Hg or of 140/90 mm Hg or greater as the diagnostic threshold for the index test (17/20 studies).^{19,20,23,32,35,38,46,49,54,55,67,70,75,80,87,95,96} Several studies additionally reported accuracy for other thresholds,^{35,37,54,70,80} and 2 studies used SBP-alone or DBP-alone thresholds.^36,78 Only 1 study reported accuracy for an OBPM threshold of 130/80 mm Hg or greater,⁷⁰ the diagnostic threshold recommended in the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline.¹⁰¹ While all but 1 study⁷⁸ reported that 24- hour ABPM was conducted, most (13) studies used daytime ABPM as a reference standard. Only 1 study had low risk of bias for all domains and was rated as good quality.⁵⁵ All other studies were rated fair quality and many had at least medium risk of bias for patient selection, conduct of the index test, and conduct of the reference test.

Meta-analysis of 15 studies using SBP/DBP thresholds and measuring blood pressure at a single visit (n = 11,309) showed a pooled sensitivity of 0.54 (95% CI, 0.37-0.70) and pooled specificity of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.84-0.95) (Figure 3). Substantial clinical and methodologic heterogeneity among the included studies contributed to considerable statistical heterogeneity not explained by any single participant or test characteristic. Among this set of studies, positive predictive values and negative predictive values ranged widely, from 0.35 to 0.97 and from 0.25 to 0.97, respectively. False-positive and false-negative rates likewise ranged widely (false-positive rate range, 0%-30%; false-negative rate range, 8%-100%). A sensitivity analysis adding 2 studies measuring blood pressure at multiple visits^19,20 rendered the same point estimate but with slightly narrower confidence intervals (sensitivity, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.37-0.68]; specificity, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.85-0.95]).

Three additional studies (n = 1268) could not be included in the meta-analysis. These included 1 study of attended AOBP³⁵ with insufficient reporting for pooling showing sensitivity consistent with the pooled analysis but lower specificity (0.74 [95% CI, 0.66-0.82]) and 2 studies that used SBP-only or DBP-only thresholds.^36,78

Four studies (n = 1467) reported results for multiple OBPM thresholds.^37,54,78,80 These studies consistently showed increased sensitivity and decreased specificity as thresholds are lowered. One study reported accuracy for an OPBM threshold of 130/80 mm Hg or greater in addition to 140/90 mm Hg or greater but also lowered the reference standard threshold; therefore, accuracy between the 2 OBPM thresholds cannot be directly compared.⁷⁰ The resulting sensitivity for the OPBM threshold of 130/80 mm Hg or greater compared with the 130/80 mm Hg or greater daytime ABPM reference standard was 0.56 (95% CI, 0.50- 0.61), with specificity of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.83-0.93).

Key Question 2a. What screening protocol characteristics define the best test accuracy?

Substantial clinical and methodological heterogeneity among the 20 included KQ2 studies precluded analysis of protocol differences across studies as explanations for differences inaccuracy. Four of the 20 included KQ2 studies reported accuracy for within-study comparisons of protocol characteristics.^35,54,78,80 No consistent pattern of test accuracy was identified related to the number of measures and visits used for screening.

Key Question 3. What is the accuracy of confirmatory blood pressure measurement in adults who initially screen positive for hypertension compared with the reference standard (ABPM)?

Eighteen fair- to good-quality studies (n = 57,128) examined the diagnostic accuracy of confirmatory blood pressure measurements compared with an ABPM reference standard in adults with a previously detected elevated OBPM.^{25,28,30,33,34,40,44,51,52,57,65,66,69,74,81,88,90,99} The Spanish ABPM Registry included 45,020 untreated individuals and represents much of the included evidence for this question.²⁸ Only 2 studies were conducted in the US.^30,44 Participants in the studies included patients referred by primary care physicians to blood pressure clinics because of borderline or elevated blood pressures, consecutive patients referred to ABPM or hypertension clinics, or individuals newly diagnosed as hypertensive by OBPM and not yet treated. Overall, the participants represented a wide range of demographic and clinical characteristics. The prevalence of hypertension as defined by ABPM among this preselected population ranged from 47%^74,99 to 80%.⁶⁹ Two of the included studies were rated as good quality, with low risk of bias for all domains.^65,90 All other studies were rated fair quality.

Four confirmatory blood pressure measurement modalities were examined for this KQ: repeated office blood pressure measurement (repeat OBPM), twice-daily home blood pressure measurement for 3 to 7 days (HBPM), measurement performed by a patient in the office setting (self-OBPM), and a truncated 6-hour ambulatory blood pressure measurement (truncated ABPM).

Repeat OBPM

The majority of evidence (13/18 studies) was for repeat OBPM.^{27,33,34,40,44,51,52,57,65,81,88,90,99} As in KQ2, most OBPM confirmatory measurements were obtained with the patient seated with at least 5 minutes’ rest, attended by personnel, taken with a mercury sphygmomanometer, used a diagnostic threshold of 140/90 mm Hg or greater, and were conducted at a single visit. Other protocol details varied widely. Meta-analysis of 8 OBPM confirmation studies (n = 53,183) reporting SBP/DBP thresholds showed a pooled sensitivity of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.68-0.88) and a pooled specificity of 0.55 (95% CI, 0.42-0.66) with high heterogeneity (Figure 4).^{27,44,52,57,65,81,88,90} Among these 8 studies, positive predictive values ranged from 0.61 to 0.88 and negative predictive values from 0.30 to 0.82. False-positive rates ranged from 15% to 65% and false-negative rates from 10% to 65%. Five studies did not contribute to the meta-analysis because they used SBP-only or DBP-only index thresholds, reference test thresholds, or both, that are not relevant to current clinical practice or did not provide sufficient data for pooling; these studies similarly reported large variations in accuracy.^{33,40,44,51,99} One study reported results for multiple OBPM thresholds with increased sensitivity and decreased specificity as thresholds are lowered.³⁴ No included study reported accuracy for an OBPM threshold of 130/80 mm Hg or greater.

HBPM

Four studies (n = 1001) examined HBPM as a confirmatory method.^25,65,66,69 In these studies, participants were instructed to measure blood pressure for 3 to 7 days in the morning and evening in the seated position after a rest period of usually 5 minutes. Meta-analysis of these 4 HBPM confirmation studies with a threshold of 135/85 mm Hg or greater (n = 1001) showed a pooled sensitivity of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.76-0.90) and pooled specificity of 0.60 (95% CI, 0.48-0.71) (Figure 4). Positive predictive values ranged from 0.68 to 0.94 and negative predictive values from 0.46 to 0.86. False-positive rates ranged from 22% to 50% and false-negative rates from 7% to 24%. Two studies reported accuracy for multiple HBPM thresholds.^25,69 These studies consistently showed increased sensitivity and decreased specificity as index test thresholds are lowered.

Self-OBPM

Two studies (n = 698) evaluated an index test in which a participant used an HBPM device to take their own blood pressure in an office setting (self-OBPM).^66,74 While many fundamental device and protocol characteristics were similar among these studies, thresholds were not comparable, and measurements were unattended by staff in 1 study. Only 1 study used SBP/DBP thresholds relevant to current clinical practice and reported high sensitivity (0.92) and low specificity (0.25). The positive predictive value in that study was 0.59 and the negative predictive value was 0.72. The false-positive rate was 75% and the false-negative rate was 8%.

Truncated ABPM

One study (n = 263) reported the accuracy of a truncated (6-hour) ABPM compared with a full 24-hour ABPM test.³⁰ Sensitivity and specificity were 0.94 and 0.76, respectively, for the subgroup (n = 126) for whom the ABPM indication was borderline hypertension. Sensitivity and specificity were 0.89 and 0.70, respectively, for the subgroup (n = 137) with suspected white coat hypertension.

Comparative Accuracy

Two studies (n = 564) reported the accuracy of multiple confirmation methods against the same ABPM reference standard.^65,66 One study (n = 361) reported the accuracy of repeat OPBM and HBPM compared with a daytime ABPM reference standard.⁶⁵ Sensitivity was high and similar for both index tests (0.85 [95% CI, 0.80-0.88] for OBPM and 0.87 [95% CI, 0.83-0.91] for HBPM). Specificity was low for both modalities (0.43 [95% CI, 0.33-0.54] for OBPM and 0.61 [95% CI, 0.51-0.71] for HBPM). The second study (n = 203) reported the accuracy of HBPM and self-OBPM compared with a daytime ABPM reference standard.⁶⁶ Sensitivity was high and similar for both index tests (0.93 [95% CI, 0.86- 0.97] for HBPM and 0.92 [95% CI, 0.85-0.96] for self-OBPM). Specificity was low for both modalities, with self-OBPM being substantially worse (0.50 [95% CI, 0.40-0.61] for HBPM and 0.25 [95% CI, 0.16-0.35] for self-OBPM).

Key Question 3a. What confirmation protocol characteristics define the best test accuracy?

Five of 18 confirmation studies reported within-study comparisons of protocol characteristics on accuracy.^{33,44,66,69,74} Evidence on protocol variations for any one confirmation modality was sparse, but very limited evidence from 2 studies (n = 459) may suggest that for HBPM, additional days of measurement beyond 5 do not improve accuracy.^66,69

Harms of Screening

Key Question 4. What are the harms of screening for hypertension in adults?

Thirteen fair- to good-quality studies (n = 5150) examined the harms of screening and diagnosis of hypertension.^{22,24,39,53,58-60,64,73,82,85,91,93,94} Evidence for KQ4 is derived from heterogeneous populations and studies of limited quality largely performed 2 or more decades ago. The limited existing evidence suggests that screening is associated with no decrement in quality of life or psychological distress,^{24,58,82,89,93} and the scant evidence on screening’s effect on absenteeism is mixed.^39,73,85 ABPM follow-up testing is associated with minor adverse events including temporary sleep disturbance and bruising.^{53,60,64,79,89,91,94} Inaccurate diagnoses (false-positive and false-negative results) are also considered harms of screening and confirmation and have been discussed under KQ2 and KQ3 results.

This study reviewed the benefits and harms of screening for hypertension in adults, as well as the accuracy of tests; a summary of the evidence by key question is provided in the Table. The lack of contemporary population-based trials solely evaluating hypertension screening may be expected; such trials would not be considered feasible or ethical given that hypertension screening is standard practice and there is a robust evidence base linking asymptomatic hypertension treatment to improved CVD outcomes.^102-107 Thus, the focus of this review was on the accuracy of screening (KQ2) and confirmatory (KQ3) blood pressure measurements, protocol variations that may influence accuracy (KQ2a and KQ3a), and the harms of screening and confirmation of hypertension (KQ4).

To our knowledge, this is the only published systematic review comparing the accuracy of office-based screening with an ABPM gold standard (KQ2). In the context of hypertension confirmation, the results of the present systematic review on the accuracy of confirmation (KQ3) are reasonably consistent with data from the International Database of Ambulatory Blood Pressure in relation to Cardiovascular Outcome (n = 4997) and other systematic reviews of confirmation, even though other reviews have included mixed populations of treated and untreated individuals and populations with and without previous elevated OBPMs.^{14,15,108-110} The highly variable specificities in these reviews of confirmation likely reflect heterogeneity in populations and measurement protocols.

Any hypertension screening algorithm using measurement modalities other than ABPM alone will incur a considerable number of missed cases of masked hypertension as well as treatment of white coat hypertension. However, the clinical significance of the poor accuracy of OBPM is largely unknown. Subsequent consequences of poor OBPM accuracy could include delays in the identification and treatment of masked hypertension. For white coat hypertension, poor OBPM accuracy could result in unnecessary treatment and exposure to adverse effects or conversely a treatment benefit. Meta-analyses suggest that for untreated individuals generally recruited from population-based cohorts, cardiovascular risk progressively increases in the order of normotension, white coat hypertension, masked hypertension, and sustained hypertension.^111-116 There are no clinical effectiveness trials for the treatment of masked hypertension, and subanalyses of trials analyzing the treatment benefit in white coat hypertension have yielded mixed results.^117-119 Nonetheless, the robust evidence base supporting hypertension screening and treatment have historically been based solely on OBPM; therefore, participants with white coat hypertension were invariably included in those treatment trials.^7,8

Multiple strategies have been suggested to improve accuracy for identifying those with sustained and masked hypertension. AOBP has been suggested as a replacement for traditional office screening and out-of-office confirmation modalities.¹²⁰ However, there were no included studies of unattended AOBP and only 1 study of attended AOBP reporting test accuracy compared with an ABPM reference standard.³⁵ Other systematic reviews have suggested that, on average, mean AOBP and ABPM values in terms of mm Hg are similar; however, there is substantial heterogeneity and it is unclear if lack of mean mm Hg differences would result in similar diagnostic categorization and treatment decisions.^13,121,122

Because higher 10-year CVD risk scores have been associated with an increased prevalence of masked hypertension, CVD risk tools could be useful for identifying specific populations that may benefit from ABPM to identify masked hypertension.^123,124 Lowering the OBPM screening threshold is a possible approach to increase test sensitivity for sustained hypertension¹⁰¹ or to additionally identify a population for whom ABPM may be ordered to detect masked hypertension.^80,101,125 Despite 2017 guidance from the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association lowering the OBPM diagnostic threshold to 130/80 mm Hg or greater,¹⁰¹ no studies are available in an untreated population that report accuracy of this threshold compared with 140/90 mm Hg or greater using the same ABPM reference standard threshold. Trials examining the comparative accuracy and feasibility of various blood pressure measurement strategies for diagnostic confirmation of hypertension in primary care are needed; the publication of 1 such trial (BP-CHECK [NCT03130257]) is anticipated in 2021.¹²

Limitations

This systematic review has several limitations. First, it excluded accuracy studies in which 20% or more of participants were treated to approximate screening populations. The accuracy of blood pressure measurements may be influenced by blood pressure variability, and variability may be reduced by hypertension medications.^127,128 These pooled accuracy estimates therefore may not be applicable to treated populations. Second, for confirmatory test accuracy (KQ3), studies were included that enrolled participants referred for ABPM; while there are indications for ABPM referral outside of diagnostic confirmation, the lack of treatment was considered a proxy for diagnostic confirmation. Third, this review did not include accuracy studies that only reported mm Hg differences between measurement modalities or studies that only included κ values as a measure of agreement because clinical decision-making to initiate pharmacotherapy is based on blood pressures exceeding a defined threshold. Fourth, the reference standard for all accuracy studies was ABPM based on the previous review’s conclusion that there was a robust evidence base that ABPM is predictive of future CVD events;¹²⁹ nonetheless, there is evidence suggesting that HBPM may be an alternative.¹³⁰ Fifth, foundational evidence supporting screening is derived from treatment trials almost exclusively recruiting patients based on elevated office measurements without out-of-office confirmation.^102-107 Sixth, treatment benefits and harms were beyond the scope of this review.

Screening using office-based blood pressure measurement had major accuracy limitations, including misdiagnosis; however, direct harms of measurement were minimal. Research is needed to determine optimal screening and confirmatory algorithms for clinical practice.

Source: This article was first published online in the Journal of the American Medical Association on April 27, 2020 (JAMA. 2021;325(16):1657-1669. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.21669).

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Funding/Support: This research was funded under contract HHSA-290-2015-000017-I-EPC5, Task Order 5, from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), US Department of Health and Human Services, under a contract to support the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: Investigators worked with USPSTF members and AHRQ staff to develop the scope, analytic framework, and key questions for this review. AHRQ had no role in study selection, quality assessment, or synthesis. AHRQ staff provided project oversight, reviewed the report to ensure that the analysis met methodological standards, and distributed the draft for peer review. Otherwise, AHRQ had no role in the conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; and preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript finding

Additional Information: A draft version of this evidence report underwent external peer review from 5 content experts (Beverly Green, MD, MPH, Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute; Mike LeFevre, MD, MSPH, MU Health Care, Future of Family Medicine; Paul Muntner, PhD, University of Alabama at Birmingham; Daichi Shimbo, MD, Columbia University; and Reem Mustafa, MBBS, PhD, MPH, University of Kansas) and 2 federal partners, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Comments were presented to the USPSTF during its deliberation of the evidence and were considered in preparing the final evidence review.

1. National Center for Health Statistics. Health, United States, 2017: With Special Feature on Mortality. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2018.
2. Benjamin EJ, Muntner P, Alonso A, et al; American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee
and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Heart disease and stroke statistics—2019 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2019;139(10):e56-e528. doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000000659
3. Patel SA, Winkel M, Ali MK, Narayan KM, Mehta NK. Cardiovascular mortality associated with 5 leading risk factors: national and state preventable fractions estimated from survey data. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163(4):245-253. doi:10.7326/M14-1753
4. Patnode CD, Evans CV, Senger CA, Redmond N, Lin JS. Behavioral counseling to promote a healthful diet and physical activity for cardiovascular disease prevention in adults without known cardiovascular disease risk factors: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2017;318(2):175-193. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.3303
5. Graudal NA, Hubeck-Graudal T, Jurgens G. Effects of low sodium diet versus high sodium diet on blood pressure, renin, aldosterone,
catecholamines, cholesterol, and triglyceride. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;4:CD004022. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004022.pub4
6. Rees K, Dyakova M, Wilson N, Ward K, Thorogood M, Brunner E. Dietary advice for reducing cardiovascular risk. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(12):CD002128.
7. Musini VM, Gueyffier F, Puil L, Salzwedel DM, Wright JM. Pharmacotherapy for hypertension in adults aged 18 to 59 years. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;8:CD008276. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD008276.pub2
8. Musini VM, Tejani AM, Bassett K, Wright JM. Pharmacotherapy for hypertension in the elderly. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;(4):CD000028.
9. Report of the Joint National Committee on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure: a cooperative study. JAMA. 1977;237(3):255-261. doi:10.1001/jama.1977.03270300059008
10. Siu AL; US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for high blood pressure in adults: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163(10):778-786. doi:10.7326/M15-2223
11. Guirguis-Blake JM, Evans CV, Webber EM, Coppola EL, Perdue LA, Weyrich MS. Screening for Hypertension in Adults: A Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Evidence Synthesis No. 197. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2021. AHRQ publication 20-05265-EF-1.
12. Piper MA, Evans CV, Burda BU, Margolis KL, O’Connor E, Whitlock EP. Diagnostic and predictive accuracy of blood pressure screeningmethods with consideration of rescreening intervals: a systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(3):192-204. doi:10.7326/M14-1539
13. Roerecke M, Kaczorowski J, Myers MG. Comparing automated office blood pressure readings with other methods of blood pressure measurement for identifying patients with possible hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(3):351-362. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.6551
14. Hodgkinson J, Mant J, Martin U, et al. Relative effectiveness of clinic and home blood pressure monitoring compared with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in diagnosis of hypertension: systematic review. BMJ. 2011;342:d3621. doi:10.1136/bmj.d3621
15. Melgarejo JD, Maestre GE, Thijs L, et al; International Database on Ambulatory Blood Pressure in Relation to Cardiovascular Outcomes (IDACO) Investigators. Prevalence, treatment, and control rates of conventional and ambulatory hypertension across 10 populations in 3 continents. Hypertension. 2017;70(1):50-58. doi:10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.117.09188
16. Human Development Report 2016: Human Development Everyone. United Nations Development Programme; 2016.
17. Yang WY, Melgarejo JD, Thijs L, et al; International Database on Ambulatory Blood Pressure in Relation to Cardiovascular Outcomes (IDACO) Investigators. Association of office and ambulatory blood pressure with mortality and cardiovascular outcomes. JAMA. 2019;322(5):409-420. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.9811
18. Procedure Manual. US Preventive Services Task Force. Published 2018. Accessed March 10, 2021.
https://uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/about-uspstf/methods-and-processes/procedure-manual
19. Larkin KT, Schauss SL, Elnicki DM. Isolated clinic hypertension and normotension: false positives and false negatives in the assessment of hypertension. Blood pressure monitoring. 1998;3:247-254.
20. Hänninen MR, Niiranen TJ, Puukka PJ, Jula AM. Comparison of home and ambulatory blood pressure measurement in the diagnosis of masked hypertension. J Hypertens. 2010;28(4):709-714. doi:10.1097/HJH.0b013e3283369faa
21. Berkman N, Lohr K, Ansari M, et al. Grading the Strength of a Body of Evidence When Assessing Health Care Interventions for the Effective Health Care Program of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: An Update: Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2014. AHRQ publication 10(14)-EHC063-EF.
22. Randomised controlled trial of treatment for mild hypertension: design and pilot trial: report of Medical Research Council Working Party on Mild to Moderate Hypertension. BMJ. 1977;1(6074):1437-1440.
23. Abdalla M, Goldsmith J, Muntner P, et al. Is isolated nocturnal hypertension a reproducible phenotype? Am J Hypertens. 2016;29(1):33-38. doi:10.1093/ajh/hpv058
24. Ameling EH, de Korte DF, Man in ‘t Veld A. Impact of diagnosis and treatment of hypertension on quality of life: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, cross-over study of betaxolol. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 1991;18(5):752-760. doi:10.1097/00005344-199111000-00014
25. Bayó J, Cos FX, Roca C, Dalfó A, Martín-Baranera MM, Albert B. Home blood pressure self-monitoring: diagnostic performance in white-coat hypertension. Blood Press Monit. 2006;11(2):47-52. doi:10.1097/01.mbp.0000200479.19046.94
26. Cuspidi C, Facchetti R, Bombelli M, et al. Risk of new-onset metabolic syndrome associated with white-coat and masked hypertension: data from a general population. J Hypertens. 2018;36(9):1833-1839. doi:10.1097/HJH.0000000000001767
27. de la Sierra A, Vinyoles E, Banegas JR, et al. Short-term and long-term reproducibility of hypertension phenotypes obtained by office and ambulatory blood pressure measurements. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2016;18(9):927-933. doi:10.1111/jch.12792
28. de la Sierra A, Vinyoles E, Banegas JR, et al. Prevalence and clinical characteristics of white-coat hypertension based on different definition criteria in untreated and treated patients. J Hypertens. 2017;35(12):2388-2394. doi:10.1097/HJH.0000000000001493
29. Diaz KM, Veerabhadrappa P, Brown MD, Whited MC, Dubbert PM, Hickson DA. Prevalence, determinants, and clinical significance of masked hypertension in a population-based sample of African Americans: the Jackson Heart Study. Am J Hypertens. 2015;28(7):900-908. doi:10.1093/ajh/hpu241
30. Ernst ME, Sezate GS, Lin W, et al. Indication-specific 6-h systolic blood pressure thresholds can approximate 24-h determination of blood pressure control. J Hum Hypertens. 2011;25(4):250-255. doi:10.1038/jhh.2010.66
31. Ernst ME, Weber CA, Dawson JD, et al. How well does a shortened time interval characterize results of a full ambulatory blood pressure monitoring session? J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2008;10(6):431-435. doi:10.1111/j.1751-7176.2008.07784.x
32. Fagard RH, Van Den Broeke C, De Cort P. Prognostic significance of blood pressure measured in the office, at home and during ambulatory monitoring in older patients in general practice. J Hum Hypertens. 2005;19(10):801-807. doi:10.1038/sj.jhh.1001903
33. Fogari R, Corradi L, Zoppi A, Lusardi P, Poletti L. Repeated office blood pressure controls reduce the prevalence of white-coat hypertension and detect a group of white-coat normotensive patients. Blood Press Monit. 1996;1(1):51-54.
34. Gerc V, Favrat B, Brunner HR, Burnier M. Is nurse-measured blood pressure a valid substitute for ambulatory blood pressure monitoring? Blood Press Monit. 2000;5(4):203-209. doi:10.1097/00126097-200008000-00002
35. Gill P, Haque MS, Martin U, et al. Measurement of blood pressure for the diagnosis and management of hypertension in different ethnic groups: one size fits all. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2017;17(1):55. doi:10.1186/s12872-017-0491-8
36. Gosse P, Dauphinot V, Roche F, Pichot V, Celle S, Barthelemy JC. Prevalence of clinical and ambulatory hypertension in a population of 65-year-olds: the PROOF study. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2010;12(3):160-165. doi:10.1111/j.1751-7176.2009.00235.x
37. Gourlay SG, McNeil JJ, Marriner T, Farish SJ, Prijatmoko D, McGrath BP. Discordance of mercury sphygmomanometer and ambulatory blood pressure measurements for the detection of untreated hypertension in a population study. J Hum Hypertens. 1993;7(5):467-472.
38. Hansen TW, Jeppesen J, Rasmussen S, Ibsen H, Torp-Pedersen C. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and risk of cardiovascular disease: a population based study. Am J Hypertens. 2006;19(3):243-250. doi:10.1016/j.amjhyper.2005.09.018
39. Haynes RB, Sackett DL, Taylor DW, Gibson ES, Johnson AL. Increased absenteeism from work after detection and labeling of hypertensive patients. N Engl J Med. 1978;299(14):741-744. doi:10.1056/NEJM197810052991403
40. Høegholm A, Kristensen KS, Madsen NH, Svendsen TL. White coat hypertension diagnosed by 24-h ambulatory monitoring: examination of 159 newly diagnosed hypertensive patients. Am J Hypertens. 1992;5(2):64-70. doi:10.1093/ajh/5.2.64
41. Hoegholm A, Kristensen KS, Madsen NH, Svendsen TL. The frequency of white coat hypertension among patients with newly diagnosed hypertension. Cardiovasc Rev Rep. 1994;15:55-61.
42. Hoshide S, Ishikawa J, Eguchi K, Ojima T, Shimada K, Kario K. Masked nocturnal hypertension and target organ damage in hypertensives with well-controlled self-measured home blood pressure. Hypertens Res. 2007;30(2):143-149.
43. Hozawa A, Ohkubo T, Kikuya M, Yamaguchi J, Ohmori K, Fujiwara T, et al. Blood pressure control assessed by home, ambulatory and conventional blood pressure measurements in the Japanese general population: the Ohasama study. Hypertens Res. 2002;25(1):57-63. doi:10.1291/hypres.25.57
44. Husain A, Lin FC, Tuttle LA, Olsson E, Viera AJ. The reproducibility of racial differences in ambulatory blood pressure phenotypes and measurements. Am J Hypertens. 2017;30(10):961-967. doi:10.1093/ajh/hpx079
45. Imai Y, Tsuji I, Nagai K, et al Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in evaluating the prevalence of hypertension in adults in Ohasama, a rural Japanese community. Hypertens Res. 1996;19(3):207-212. doi:10.1291/hypres.19.207
46. Ishikawa J, Hoshide S, Eguchi K, et al. Masked hypertension defined by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring is associated with an increased serum glucose level and urinary albumin-creatinine ratio. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2010;12(8):578-587. doi:10.1111/j.1751-7176.2010.00286.x
47. Kaczorowski J, Chambers LW, Dolovich L, Paterson JM, Karwalajtys T, Gierman T, et al. Improving cardiovascular health at population level: 39 community cluster randomised trial of Cardiovascular Health Awareness Program (CHAP). BMJ. 2011;342:d442. doi:10.1136/bmj.d442
48. Kaczorowski J, Chambers LW, Karwalajtys T, et al. Cardiovascular Health Awareness Program (CHAP): a community cluster-randomised trial among elderly Canadians. Prev Med. 2008;46(6):537-544. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2008.02.005
49. Kanno A, Metoki H, Kikuya M, et al. Usefulness of assessing masked and white-coat hypertension by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring for determining prevalent risk of chronic kidney disease: the Ohasama study. Hypertens Res. 2010;33(11):1192-1198. doi:10.1038/hr.2010.139
50. Karwalajtys T, Kaczorowski J, Chambers LW, et al. Community mobilization, participation, and blood pressure status in a Cardiovascular Health Awareness Program in Ontario. Am J Health Promot. 2013;27(4):252-261. doi:10.4278/ajhp.101221-QUAL-408
51. Kim S, Park JJ, Lee SA, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of manual office blood pressure measurement in ambulatory hypertensive patients in Korea. Korean J Intern Med. 2018;33(1):113-120. doi:10.3904/kjim.2016.161
52. Kotsis V, Stabouli S, Toumanidis S, et al. Target organ damage in “white coat hypertension” and “masked hypertension.” Am J Hypertens. 2008;21(4):393-399. doi:10.1038/ajh.2008.15
53. Kuwajima I, Nishinaga M, Kanamaru A. The accuracy and clinical performance of a new compact ambulatory blood pressure monitoring device, the ES-H531. Am J Hypertens. 1998;11(11, pt 1):1328-1333. doi:10.1016/S0895-7061(98)00155-1
54. Lyamina NP, Smith ML, Lyamina SV, et al. Pressor response to 30-s breathhold: a predictor of masked hypertension. Blood Press. 2012;21(6):372-376. doi:10.3109/08037051.2012.694213
55. Mancia G, Facchetti R, Bombelli M, Grassi G, Sega R. Long-term risk of mortality associated with selective and combined elevation in office, home, and ambulatory blood pressure. Hypertension. 2006;47(5):846-853. doi:10.1161/01.HYP.0000215363.69793.bb
56. Mancia G, Sega R, Bravi C, et al. Ambulatory blood pressure normality: results from the PAMELA study. J Hypertens. 1995;13(12, pt 1):1377-1390. doi:10.1097/00004872-199512000-00003
57. Manios ED, Koroboki EA, Tsivgoulis GK, et al. Factors influencing white-coat effect. Am J Hypertens. 2008;21(2):153-158. doi:10.1038/ajh.2007.43
58. Mann AH. The psychological effect of a screening programme and clinical trial for hypertension upon the participants. Psychol Med. 1977;7(3):431-438. doi:10.1017/S0033291700004402
59. Manning G, Rushton L, Donnelly R, Millar-Craig MW. Variability of diurnal changes in ambulatory blood pressure and nocturnal dipping status in untreated hypertensive and normotensive subjects. Am J Hypertens. 2000;13(9):1035-1038. doi:10.1016/S0895-7061(00)00261-2
60. Manning G, Vijan SG, Millar-Craig MW. Does perception of sleep quality affect diurnal variation of blood pressure and heart rate during 24Hr blood pressure monitoring? Clin Sci (Lond). 1992;83(suppl 27):22P-23P. doi:10.1042/cs083022Pc
61. Martin U, Haque MS, Wood S, et al. Ethnicity and differences between clinic and ambulatory blood pressure measurements. Am J Hypertens. 2015;28(6):729-738. doi:10.1093/ajh/hpu211
62. McMullan CJ, Hickson DA, Taylor HA, Forman JP. Prospective analysis of the association of ambulatory blood pressure characteristics with incident chronic kidney disease. J Hypertens. 2015;33(9):1939-1946. doi:10.1097/HJH.0000000000000638
63. Muntner P, Lewis CE, Diaz KM, et al. Racial differences in abnormal ambulatory blood pressure monitoring measures: results from the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study. Am J Hypertens. 2015;28(5):640-648. doi:10.1093/ajh/hpu193
64. Nasothimiou EG, Karpettas N, Dafni MG, Stergiou GS. Patients' preference for ambulatory versus home blood pressure monitoring. J Hum Hypertens. 2014;28(4):224-229. doi:10.1038/jhh.2013.104
65. Nasothimiou EG, Tzamouranis D, Rarra V, Roussias LG, Stergiou GS. Diagnostic accuracy of home vs. ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in untreated and treated hypertension. Hypertens Res. 2012;35(7):750-755. doi:10.1038/hr.201
66. Nunan D, Thompson M, Heneghan CJ, Perera R, McManus RJ, Ward A. Accuracy of self-monitored blood pressure for diagnosing hypertension in primary care. J Hypertens. 2015;33(4):755-762. doi:10.1097/HJH.0000000000000489
67. O’Flynn AM, Curtin RJ, Perry IJ, Kearney PM. Hypertension prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control: should 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring be the tool of choice? J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2016;18(7):697-702. doi:10.1111/jch.12737
68. Oe Y, Shimbo D, Ishikawa J, et al. Alterations in diastolic function in masked hypertension: findings from the masked hypertension study. Am J Hypertens. 2013;26(6):808-815. doi:10.1093/ajh/hpt021
69. Park JS, Rhee MY, Namgung J, et al. Comparison of optimal diagnostic thresholds of hypertension with home blood pressure monitoring and 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Am J Hypertens. 2017;30(12):1170-1176. doi:10.1093/ajh/hpx115
70. Poudel B, Booth JN III, Sakhuja S, et al. Prevalence of ambulatory blood pressure phenotypes using the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association blood pressure guideline thresholds: data from the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults study. J Hypertens. 2019;37(7):1401-1410. doi:10.1097/HJH.0000000000002055
71. Presta V, Figliuzzi I, D’Agostino M, et al. Nocturnal blood pressure patterns and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with masked hypertension. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2018;20(9):1238-1246. doi:10.1111/jch.13361
72. Rhee MY, Kim JY, Kim JH, et al. Optimal schedule of home blood-pressure measurements for the diagnosis of hypertension. Hypertens Res. 2018;41(9):738-747. doi:10.1038/s41440-018-0069-6
73. Rudd P, Price MG, Graham LE, et al. Consequences of worksite hypertension screening: changes in absenteeism. Hypertension. 1987;10(4):425-436. doi:10.1161/01.HYP.10.4.425
74. Salazar MR, Espeche WG, Stavile RN, et al. Could self-measured office blood pressure be a hypertension screening tool for limited-resources settings? J Hum Hypertens. 2018;32(6):415-422. doi:10.1038/s41371-018-0057-y
75. Scuteri A, Morrell CH, Orru’ M, et al. Gender specific profiles of white coat and masked hypertension impacts on arterial structure and function in the SardiNIA study. Int J Cardiol. 2016;217:92-98. doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.04.172
76. Scuteri A, Najjar SS, Orru’ M, et al. Age- and gender-specific awareness, treatment, and control of cardiovascular risk factors and subclinical vascular lesions in a founder population: the SardiNIA Study. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2009;19(8):532-541. doi:10.1016/j.numecd.2008.11.004
77. Sehestedt T, Jeppesen J, Hansen TW, et al. Can ambulatory blood pressure measurements substitute assessment of subclinical cardiovascular damage? J Hypertens. 2012;30(3):513-521. doi:10.1097/HJH.0b013e32834f6f60
78. Selenta C, Hogan BE, Linden W. How often do office blood pressure measurements fail to identify true hypertension? an exploration of white-coat normotension. Arch Fam Med. 2000;9(6):533-540. doi:10.1001/archfami.9.6.533
79. Sherwood A, Hill LK, Blumenthal JA, Hinderliter AL. The effects of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring on sleep quality in men and women with hypertension: dipper vs. nondipper and race differences. Am J Hypertens. 2019;32(1):54-60. doi:10.1093/ajh/hpy138
80. Shimbo D, Newman JD, Schwartz JE. Masked hypertension and prehypertension: diagnostic overlap and interrelationships with left ventricular mass: the Masked Hypertension Study. Am J Hypertens. 2012;25(6):664-671. doi:10.1038/ajh.2012.15
81. Shin J, Park SH, Kim JH, et al. Discordance between ambulatory versus clinic blood pressure according to global cardiovascular risk group. Korean J Intern Med. 2015;30(5):610-619. doi:10.3904/kjim.2015.30.5.610
82. Spruill TM, Feltheimer SD, Harlapur M, et al. Are there consequences of labeling patients with prehypertension? an experimental study of effects on blood pressure and quality of life. J Psychosom Res. 2013;74(5):433-438. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2013.01.009
83. Stergiou GS, Salgami EV, Tzamouranis DG, Roussias LG. Masked hypertension assessed by ambulatory blood pressure versus home blood pressure monitoring: is it the same phenomenon? Am J Hypertens. 2005;18(6):772-778. doi:10.1016/j.amjhyper.2005.01.003
84. Stergiou GS, Skeva II, Baibas NM, Kalkana CB, Roussias LG, Mountokalakis TD. Diagnosis of hypertension using home or ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: comparison with the conventional strategy based on repeated clinic blood pressure measurements. J Hypertens. 2000;18(12):1745-1751. doi:10.1097/00004872-200018120-00007
85. Taylor DW, Haynes RB, Sackett DL, Gibson ES. Longterm follow-up of absenteeism among working men following the detection and treatment of their hypertension. Clin Invest Med. 1981;4(3-4):173-177.
86. Terracciano A, Scuteri A, Strait J, et al. Are personality traits associated with white-coat and masked hypertension? J Hypertens. 2014;32(10):1987-1992. doi:10.1097/HJH.000000000000028
87. Thomas SJ, Booth JN III, Bromfield SG, et al. Clinic and ambulatory blood pressure in a population-based sample of African Americans: the Jackson Heart Study. J Am Soc Hypertens. 2017;11(4):204-212.e5. doi:10.1016/j.jash.2017.02.001
88. Tocci G, Presta V, Figliuzzi I, et al. Prevalence and clinical outcomes of white-coat and masked hypertension: analysis of a large ambulatory blood pressure database. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2018;20(2):297-305. doi:10.1111/jch.13181
89. Tompson AC, Ward AM, McManus RJ, et al. Acceptability and psychological impact of out-of-office monitoring to diagnose hypertension: an evaluation of survey data from primary care patients. Br J Gen Pract. 2019;69(683):e389-e397. doi:10.3399/bjgp19X702221
90. Ungar A, Pepe G, Monami M, et al. Isolated ambulatory hypertension is common in outpatients referred to a hypertension centre. J Hum Hypertens. 2004;18(12):897-903. doi:10.1038/sj.jhh.1001756
91. Verdecchia P, Angeli F, Borgioni C, Gattobigio R, Reboldi G. Ambulatory blood pressure and cardiovascular outcome in relation to perceived sleep deprivation. Hypertension. 2007;49(4):777-783. doi:10.1161/01.HYP.0000258215.26755.20
92. Viera AJ, Lin FC, Tuttle LA, et al. Reproducibility of masked hypertension among adults 30 years or older. Blood Press Monit. 2014;19(4):208-215. doi:10.1097/MBP.0000000000000054
93. Viera AJ, Lingley K, Esserman D. Effects of labeling patients as prehypertensive. J Am Board Fam Med. 2010;23(5):571-583. doi:10.3122/jabfm.2010.05.100047
94. Viera AJ, Lingley K, Hinderliter AL. Tolerability of the Oscar 2 ambulatory blood pressure monitor among research participants: a cross-sectional repeated measures study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11:59. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-11-59
95. Wei FF, Zhang ZY, Thijs L, et al. Conventional and ambulatory blood pressure as predictors of retinal arteriolar narrowing. Hypertension. 2016;68(2):511-520. doi:10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.116.07523
96. WojciechowskaW, Stolarz-Skrzypek K, Olszanecka A, et al. Subclinical arterial and cardiac damage in white-coat and masked hypertension. Blood Press. 2016;25(4):249-256. doi:10.3109/08037051.2016.11505
97. Wood S, Martin U, Gill P, et al. Blood pressure in different ethnic groups (BP-Eth): a mixed methods study. BMJ Open. 2012;2(6):2012. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001598
98. Ye C, Foster G, Kaczorowski J, et al. The impact of a Cardiovascular Health Awareness Program (CHAP) on reducing blood pressure: a prospective cohort study. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:1230. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-1230
99. Zabludowski JR, Rosenfeld JB. Evaluation of clinic blood pressure measurements: assessment by daytime ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Isr J Med Sci. 1992;28(6):345-348.
100. Zakopoulos NA, Kotsis VT, Pitiriga VCh, et al. White-coat effect in normotension and hypertension. Blood Press Monit. 2002;7(5):271-276. doi:10.1097/00126097-200210000-00004
101. Whelton PK, Carey RM, Aronow WS, et al. 2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Hypertension. 2018;71(6):e13-e115.
102. Czernichow S, Zanchetti A, Turnbull F, et al; Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration. The effects of blood pressure reduction and of different blood pressure-lowering regimens on major cardiovascular events according to baseline blood pressure: meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Hypertens. 2011;29(1):4-16. doi:10.1097/HJH.0b013e32834000be
103. Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration. Blood pressure-lowering treatment based on cardiovascular risk: ameta-analysis of individual patient data. Lancet. 2014;384(9943):591-598. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61212-5
104. Xie X, Atkins E, Lv J, et al. Effects of intensive blood pressure lowering on cardiovascular and renal outcomes: updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2016;387(10017):435-443. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00805-3
105. Ettehad D, Emdin CA, Kiran A, et al. Blood pressure lowering for prevention of cardiovascular disease and death: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2016;387(10022):957-967. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01225-8
106. Bundy JD, Li C, Stuchlik P, et al. Systolic blood pressure reduction and risk of cardiovascular disease and mortality: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. JAMA Cardiol. 2017;2(7):775-781. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2017.1421
107. Brunström M, Carlberg B. Association of blood pressure lowering with mortality and cardiovascular disease across blood pressure levels: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(1):28-36. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.6015
108. Hypertension in adults: diagnosis and management. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Published August 28, 2019. Accessed March 19, 2021. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng136
109. Reino-Gonzalez S, Pita-Fernández S, Seoane-Pillado T, López-Calviño B, Pértega Díaz S. How in-office and ambulatory BP monitoring compare: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Fam Pract. 2017;66(1):E5-E12.
110. Omboni S, Aristizabal D, De la Sierra A, et al; ARTEMIS (international Ambulatory blood pressure Registry: TEleMonitoring of hypertension and cardiovascular rISk project) Investigators. Hypertension types defined by clinic and ambulatory blood pressure in 14143 patients
referred to hypertension clinics worldwide: data from the ARTEMIS study. J Hypertens. 2016;34(11):2187-2198. doi:10.1097/HJH.0000000000001074
111. Briasoulis A, Androulakis E, Palla M, Papageorgiou N, Tousoulis D. White-coat hypertension and cardiovascular events: a meta-analysis. J Hypertens. 2016;34(4):593-599. doi:10.1097/HJH.0000000000000832
112. Huang Y, HuangW, Mai W, et al. White-coat hypertension is a risk factor for cardiovascular diseases and total mortality. J Hypertens. 2017;35(4):677-688. doi:10.1097/HJH.0000000000001226
113. Pierdomenico SD, Cuccurullo F. Prognostic value of white-coat and masked hypertension diagnosed by ambulatory monitoring in initially untreated subjects: an updated meta analysis. Am J Hypertens. 2011;24(1):52-8. doi:10.1038/ajh.2010.203
114. Asayama K, Thijs L, Li Y, et al; International Database on Ambulatory Blood Pressure in Relation to Cardiovascular Outcomes (IDACO) Investigators. Setting thresholds to varying blood pressure monitoring intervals differentially affects risk estimates associated with white-coat and masked hypertension in the population. Hypertension. 2014;64(5):935-942. doi:10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.114.03614
115. Cohen JB, Lotito MJ, Trivedi UK, Denker MG, Cohen DL, Townsend RR. Cardiovascular events and mortality in white coat hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2019;170(12):853-862. doi:10.7326/M19-0223
116. Shimbo D, Muntner P. Should out-of-office monitoring be performed for detecting white coat hypertension? Ann Intern Med. 2019;170(12):890-892. doi:10.7326/M19-1134
117. Fagard RH, Staessen JA, Thijs L, et al; Systolic Hypertension in Europe (Syst-Eur) Trial Investigators. Response to antihypertensive therapy in older patients with sustained and nonsustained systolic hypertension. Circulation. 2000;102(10):1139-1144. doi:10.1161/01.CIR.102.10.1139
118. Beckett NS, Peters R, Fletcher AE, et al; HYVET Study Group. Treatment of hypertension in patients 80 years of age or older. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(18):1887-1898. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0801369
119. Bulpitt CJ, Beckett N, Peters R, et al. Does white coat hypertension require treatment over age 80? results of the hypertension in the very elderly trial ambulatory blood pressure side project. Hypertension. 2013;61(1):89-94. doi:10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.112.191791
120. Myers MG, Cloutier L, Gelfer M, Padwal RS, Kaczorowski J. Blood pressure measurement in the post-SPRINT Era: a Canadian perspective. Hypertension. 2016;68(1):e1-e3. doi:10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.116.07598
121. Jegatheswaran J, Ruzicka M, Hiremath S, Edwards C. Are automated blood pressure monitors comparable to ambulatory blood pressure monitors? a systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Cardiol. 2017;33(5):644-652. doi:10.1016/j.cjca.2017.01.020
122. Pappaccogli M, Di Monaco S, Perlo E, et al. Comparison of automated office blood pressure with office and out-off-office measurement techniques. Hypertension. 2019;73(2):481-490. doi:10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.118.12079
123. Herrett E, Gadd S, Jackson R, et al. Eligibility and subsequent burden of cardiovascular disease of four strategies for blood pressure-lowering treatment: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet. 2019;394(10199):663-671. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31359-5
124. Anstey DE, Booth JN III, Abdalla M, et al. Predicted atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk and masked hypertension among Blacks in the Jackson Heart Study. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2017;10(7):e003421. doi:10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.116.003421
125. Booth JN III, Muntner P, Diaz KM, et al. Evaluation of criteria to detect masked hypertension. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2016;18(11):1086-1094. doi:10.1111/jch.12830
126. Green BB, Anderson ML, Campbell J, et al. Blood pressure checks and diagnosing hypertension (BP-CHECK): Design and methods of a randomized controlled diagnostic study comparing clinic, home, kiosk, and 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring. Contemp Clin Trials. 2019;79:1-13. doi:10.1016/j.cct.2019.01.003
127. Omboni S, Kario K, Bakris G, Parati G. Effect of antihypertensive treatment on 24-h blood pressure variability: pooled individual data analysis of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring studies based on olmesartan mono or combination treatment. J Hypertens. 2018;36(4):720-733. doi:10.1097/HJH.0000000000001608
128. Webb AJ, Fischer U, Mehta Z, Rothwell PM. Effects of antihypertensive-drug class on interindividual variation in blood pressure and risk of stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2010;375(9718):906-915. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60235-8
129. Piper MA, Evans CV, Burda BU, et al. Screening for High Blood Pressure in Adults: A Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2014. Report 13-05194-EF-1.
130. Shimbo D, Abdalla M, Falzon L, Townsend RR, Muntner P. Studies comparing ambulatory blood pressure and home blood pressure on cardiovascular disease and mortality outcomes: a systematic review. J Am Soc Hypertens. 2016;10(3):224-234.

Evidence reviews for the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) use an analytic framework to visually display the key questions that the review will address to allow the USPSTF to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of a preventive service. The questions are depicted by linkages that relate interventions and outcomes. A dashed line indicates a health outcome that immediately follows an intermediate outcome. BP indicates blood pressure; CVD, cardiovascular disease; ESRD, end-stage renal disease; PAD, peripheral artery disease.

KQ indicates key question; IPD-MA, independent patient–data meta-analysis.
^a Reasons for exclusion: Aim: Study aim not relevant. Setting: Study not conducted in a relevant primary care or out-of-office setting. Outcomes: Study did not have relevant outcomes or had incomplete outcomes. Population: Highly selected populations who do not represent a primary screening populations and populations treated for hypertension with medication. Intervention: Study used an excluded intervention or screening approach. Study design: Study did not use an included design. Comparator: Study did not use ambulatory blood pressure monitoring reference standard (KQ2, KQ3). Quality: Study did not meet criteria for fair or good quality. Country: Study conducted in a country not identified as “very high” on the 2015 Human Development Index. Publication type: Conference abstract.

Abbreviations: ABPM, ambulatory blood pressure measurement; AOBP, automated office-based blood pressure measurement; CVD, cardiovascular disease; DBP, diastolic blood pressure; HBPM, home blood pressure measurement; HDI, Human Development Index; HTN, hypertension; NA, not applicable; OBPM, office blood pressure measurement; QOL, quality of life; RCT, randomized clinical trial; SBP, systolic blood pressure.