Compliance to the recommendations on blood pressure measurements in the clinical settings
Compliance to the recommendations on blood pressure measurements in the clinical settings
复制标题
遵守临床环境中血压测量的建议
DOI：
10.1097/hjh.0b013e32835aaffd
复制
发表时间：
2013
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Yutaka Imai
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Taku Obara;Takayoshi Ohkubo;Nariyasu Mano;Shinichi Kuriyama;Yutaka Imai
我们参考了Adji和O ' rourke b[1]最近关于“肱动脉张力测量和大力水手现象”的文章。Adji和O ' rourke[1]似乎进行了一项选择性分析，对“应用肱动脉血压计的主要流行病学、临床和治疗研究提出了严重质疑”[1]，并引用了20个不同相关性的支持参考文献。其中三项研究来自我们的小组[2-4]（他们的参考文献26-28）。不幸的是，Adji和O 'Rourke把我们的工作分类错了。我们从未在任何研究中使用过肱血压计。Adji和O 'Rourke bb1的这种错误分类适用于我们引用的两项研究[3,4]（他们的参考文献26,27），也适用于Ahimastos等人的工作bb0（他们的参考文献28）。Adji和O 'Rourke将他们讨论的整个前提和结论建立在他们在表1和表6中列出的研究之间校准技术差异的相关性上。他们的表6旨在显示在心血管结果研究中使用肱血压计校准中心压力的报告结果。由于他们引用的三个研究中有两个（我们的工作[3,4]，他们的参考文献26,27）被错误地归类为使用了肱血压计，我们认为Adji和O ' rourke[1]实际上似乎没有实际的基础来提供他们的结论，特别是（见他们的结束语）“他们[即表6中列出的研究]在文献中的存在污染了元分析”。Adji和O ' rourke等人武断地将两项研究[3,4]从他们对中枢血流动力学和心血管结果的分析中排除，或者声称这两项研究“污染”了其他人先前发表的荟萃分析[Vlachopoulos等人[bb1，他们的参考文献116]，这完全是错误的。我们同意Adji和O ' rourke的观点，即要避免“污染”荟萃分析，显然，在提供了明确的纳入标准和搜索方法声明以及正确分类研究的情况下，这种情况不太可能发生。我们无法在他们当前的出版物[1]中找到任何与分析相关的预定义纳入标准或搜索方法的明确细节。
We refer to the recent article by Adji and O’Rourke [1] on the topic of ‘Brachial artery tonometry and the Popeye phenomenon’. Adji and O’Rourke [1] seem to have undertaken a selective analysis to cast a ‘serious doubt on the major epidemiological, clinical and therapeutic studies in which brachial artery tonometry has been applied’[1] and quote 20 supporting references of varying relevance. Three of these studies are from our group [2–4](their references 26–28). Unfortunately, Adji and O’Rourke [1] have misclassified our work. We have never employed brachial tonometry in any of our studies. This misclassification by Adji and O’Rourke [1] applies to the two studies quoted by us [3, 4](their references 26, 27) and also to the work by Ahimastos et al.[2](their reference 28).Adji and O’Rourke [1] base the entire premise of their discussion and conclusion on the relevance of differences in calibration technique between the studies they list in their Tables 1 and 6. Their Table 6 purports to show reported outcome studies that used brachial tonometry for central pressure calibration in cardiovascular outcome studies. As two of only three studies they quote (our work [3, 4], their references 26, 27) are incorrectly classified as having employed brachial tonometry, we suggest that Adji and O’Rourke [1] appear in fact to have no actual basis upon which to proffer their conclusions, in particular (see their concluding paragraph)‘that their [ie the studies listed in their Table 6] presence in the literature taints meta-analysis’. It is entirely fallacious for Adji and O’Rourke [1] to arbitrarily exclude two studies [3, 4] from their analysis of central haemodynamics and cardiovascular outcome or to claim that such studies ‘taint’the previous meta-analyses published by others [Vlachopoulos et al.[5], their reference 116]. We agree with Adji and O’Rourke [1] that ‘tainting’of meta-analyses is to be avoided, and obviously, this is less likely to occur in cases in which clear statements of inclusion criteria and search methods are provided and studies correctly classified. We were unable to find clear detail of any predefined inclusion criteria or search method associated with the analysis in their current publication [1].