Automated Office-Based Blood Pressure Measurement: an Overview and Guidance for Implementation in Primary Care

  • Romsai T. BoonyasaiEmail author
  • Erika L. McCannon
  • Joseph E. Landavaso
Implementation to Increase Blood Pressure Control: What Works? (Jeffrey Brettler and Kristi Reynolds, Section Editors)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Implementation to Increase Blood Pressure Control: What Works?


Purpose of Review

The purposes of this study are to review evidence supporting the use of automated office blood pressure (AOBP) measurement and to provide practical guidance for implementing it in clinical settings.

Recent Findings

Mean AOBP readings correlate with awake ambulatory blood pressure monitor (ABPM) values and predict cardiovascular outcomes better than conventional techniques. However, heterogeneity among readings suggests that AOBP does not replace ABPM. Blood pressure (BP) measurement protocols differ among commonly described AOBP devices, but all produce valid BP estimates. Rest periods should not precede AOBP with BpTRU devices but should occur before use with Omron HEM-907 and Microlife WatchBP Office devices. Attended and unattended AOBP appear to produce similar results. This review also describes a framework to aid AOBP’s implementation in clinical practice.


Evidence supports AOBP as the preferred method for measuring BP in office settings, but this approach should be a complement to out-of-office measurements, such as self-measured BP monitoring or 24-h ABPM, not a substitute for it.


Blood pressure measurement Automated office blood pressure AOBP Hypertension Implementation science Primary care 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest relevant to this manuscript.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.


Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    • Kallioinen N, et al. Sources of inaccuracy in the measurement of adult patients’ resting blood pressure in clinical settings: a systematic review. J Hypertens. 2017;35(3):421–41 A comprehensive review of factors that influence the quality of office-based BP measurement, which summarizes how each specific factor contributes to inaccurate readings. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    •• Banegas JR, et al. Relationship between clinic and ambulatory blood-pressure measurements and mortality. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(16):1509–20 A often-cited, rigorous cohort study showing that ABPM readings are a stronger predictor of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality than office blood pressure measurements. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    • Piper MA, et al. Diagnostic and predictive accuracy of blood pressure screening methods with consideration of rescreening intervals: a systematic review for the U.S Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(3):192–204 A systematic review of studies comparing SMBP and ABPM with office BP monitoring. It forms the basis for the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force recommendation that hypertension diagnosis be made with out-of-office BP measurement. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stergiou GS, Bliziotis IA. Home blood pressure monitoring in the diagnosis and treatment of hypertension: a systematic review. Am J Hypertens. 2011;24(2):123–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hodgkinson J, Mant J, Martin U, Guo B, Hobbs FDR, Deeks JJ, 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    •• Whelton PK, 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 This comprehensive guideline statement establishes the standards by which hypertension is diagnosed and managed in the United States. It emphasizes the importance of obtaining out-of-office BP measurements when establishing a hypertension diagnosis and in assessing the effects of therapy. PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    • O’Brien E, et al. European Society of Hypertension recommendations for conventional, ambulatory and home blood pressure measurement. J Hypertens. 2003;21(5):821–48 Widely respected international hypertension guidelines that emphasize the importance of obtaining out-of-office BP measurements but also give preference to the AOBP approach when estimating blood pressure in office settings. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    • Leung AA, et al. Hypertension Canada’s 2016 Canadian hypertension education program guidelines for blood pressure measurement, diagnosis, assessment of risk, prevention, and treatment of hypertension. Can J Cardiol. 2016;32(5):569–88 These well regarded and annually updated hypertension guidelines emphasize the importance of out-of-office BP measurements but also describe AOBP as the preferred approach for measuring BP in medical office settings. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Myers MG, et al. Blood pressure measurement in the post-SPRINT era: a Canadian perspective. Hypertension. 2016;68(1):e1–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    O’Brien E, Dolan E, Stergiou GS. Achieving reliable blood pressure measurements in clinical practice: it’s time to meet the challenge. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2018;20(7):1084–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pickering TG, et al. Recommendations for blood pressure measurement in humans and experimental animals: part 1: blood pressure measurement in humans: a statement for professionals from the Subcommittee of Professional and Public Education of the American Heart Association Council on high blood pressure research. Hypertension. 2005;45(1):142–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Giles TD, Egan P. Pay (adequately) for what works: the economic undervaluation of office and ambulatory blood pressure recordings. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2008;10(4):257–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mancia G, et al. Effects of blood-pressure measurement by the doctor on patient’s blood pressure and heart rate. Lancet. 1983;2(8352):695–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Myers MG, Godwin M, Dawes M, Kiss A, Tobe SW, Kaczorowski J. Measurement of blood pressure in the office: recognizing the problem and proposing the solution. Hypertension. 2010;55(2):195–200.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Myers MG, Valdivieso MA. Use of an automated blood pressure recording device, the BpTRU, to reduce the “white coat effect” in routine practice. Am J Hypertens. 2003;16(6):494–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    •• Jegatheswaran J, et al. Are automated blood pressure monitors comparable to ambulatory blood pressure monitors? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Cardiol. 2017;33(5):644–52 A comprehensive meta-analysis demonstrating that mean AOBP readings are similar to awake ABPM readings, but also that AOBP measurements can be highly variable relative to ABPM readings. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Campbell NR, et al. Automated oscillometric blood pressure versus auscultatory blood pressure as a predictor of carotid intima-medial thickness in male firefighters. J Hum Hypertens. 2007;21(7):588–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Myers MG, Kaczorowski J, Paterson JM, Dolovich L, Tu K. Thresholds for diagnosing hypertension based on automated office blood pressure measurements and cardiovascular risk. Hypertension. 2015;66(3):489–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Myers MG, Kaczorowski J, Dolovich L, Tu K, Paterson JM. Cardiovascular risk in hypertension in relation to achieved blood pressure using automated office blood pressure measurement. Hypertension. 2016;68(4):866–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    White WB, Anwar YA. Evaluation of the overall efficacy of the Omron office digital blood pressure HEM-907 monitor in adults. Blood Press Monit. 2001;6(2):107–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stergiou GS, Lin CW, Lin CM, Chang SL, Protogerou AD, Tzamouranis D, et al. Automated device that complies with current guidelines for office blood pressure measurement: design and pilot application study of the microlife WatchBP office device. Blood Press Monit. 2008;13(4):231–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kaczorowski J, et al. How do family physicians measure blood pressure in routine clinical practice? National survey of Canadian family physicians. Can Fam Physician. 2017;63(3):e193–9.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bryan S, et al. Resting blood pressure and heart rate measurement in the Canadian health measures survey, cycle 1. Health Rep. 2010;21(1):71–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ostchega Y, et al. Blood pressure randomized methodology study comparing automatic oscillometric and mercury sphygmomanometer devices: National Health and nutrition examination survey, 2009-2010. Natl Health Stat Report. 2012;(59):1–15.
  25. 25.
    •• Wright JT Jr, Whelton PK, Reboussin DM. A randomized trial of intensive versus standard blood-pressure control. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(23):2294 This study found that targeting systolic BP < 120 mmHg improves cardiovascular outcomes. It has influenced treatment recommendations in the ACC/AHA guidelines but also generated considerable debate over how to translate the results into clinical practice. PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kjeldsen SE, Mancia G. Unobserved automated office blood pressure measurement in the systolic blood pressure intervention trial (SPRINT): systolic blood pressure treatment target remains below 140 mmHg. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Pharmacother. 2016;2(2):79–80. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Myers MG, Campbell NR. Unfounded concerns about the use of automated office blood pressure measurement in SPRINT. J Am Soc Hypertens. 2016;10(12):903–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stergiou GS, Kyriakoulis KG, Kollias A. Office blood pressure measurement types: different methodology-different clinical conclusions. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2018;20(12):1683–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    • Parati G, Ochoa JE, Bilo G. Moving beyond office blood pressure to achieve a personalized and more precise hypertension management: which way to go? Hypertension. 2017. A concise summary of the different approaches for measuring blood pressure. It provides a useful perspective for clinicians who use BP measurements from various sources, such as conventional, AOBP and out-of-office methods.;70.
  30. 30.
    Dufort and Lavigne Ltd, The end of bptru blood press monitors. October 30, 2017: Accessed 16 Jan 2019
  31. 31.
    Vinyoles E, Blancafort X, López-Quiñones C, Arqué M, Brau A, Cerdán N, et al. Blood pressure measurement in an ambulatory setting: concordance between physician and patient self-measurement. J Hum Hypertens. 2003;17(1):45–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Stergiou GS, Efstathiou SP, Alamara CV, Mastorantonakis SE, Roussias LG. Home or self blood pressure measurement? What is the correct term? J Hypertens. 2003;21(12):2259–64.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Al-Karkhi I, et al. Comparisons of automated blood pressures in a primary health care setting with self-measurements at the office and at home using the Omron i-C10 device. Blood Press Monit. 2015;20(2):98–103.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Alpert BS. Clinical evaluation of the Welch Allyn SureBP algorithm for automated blood pressure measurement. Blood Press Monit. 2007;12(4):215–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Paini A, Bertacchini F, Stassaldi D, Aggiusti C, Maruelli G, Arnoldi C, et al. Unattended versus attended blood pressure measurement: mean values and determinants of the difference. Int J Cardiol. 2019;274:305–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    White WB, Anwar YA. Evaluation of the overall efficacy of the Omron office digital blood pressure HEM-907 monitor in adults. Blood Press Monit. 2001;6(2):107–10. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    El Assaad MA, et al. Validation of the Omron HEM-907 device for blood pressure measurement. Blood Press Monit. 2002;7(4):237–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Gurpreet K, Tee GH, Karuthan C. Evaluation of the accuracy of the Omron HEM-907 blood pressure device. Med J Malaysia. 2008;63(3):239–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ostchega Y, Nwankwo T, Sorlie PD, Wolz M, Zipf G. Assessing the validity of the Omron HEM-907XL oscillometric blood pressure measurement device in a National Survey environment. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2010;12(1):22–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Czarkowski M, Staszków M, Kostyra K, Shebani Z, Niemczyk S, Matuszkiewicz-Rowińska J. Determining the accuracy of blood pressure measurement by the Omron HEM-907 before and after hemodialysis. Blood Press Monit. 2009;14(5):232–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Cohen JB, Wong TC, Alpert BS, Townsend RR. Assessing the accuracy of the OMRON HEM-907XL oscillometric blood pressure measurement device in patients with nondialytic chronic kidney disease. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2017;19(3):296–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Myers MG, Valdivieso M, Kiss A, Tobe SW. Comparison of two automated sphygmomanometers for use in the office setting. Blood Press Monit. 2009;14(1):45–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Rinfret F, Cloutier L, Wistaff R, Birnbaum LM, Ng Cheong N, Laskine M, et al. Comparison of different automated office blood pressure measurement devices: evidence of nonequivalence and clinical implications. Can J Cardiol. 2017;33(12):1639–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Agarwal R. Implications of blood pressure measurement technique for implementation of systolic blood pressure intervention trial (SPRINT). J Am Heart Assoc. 2017;6(2).
  45. 45.
    Papademetriou V, Tsioufis C, Chung A, Geladari C, Andreadis EA. Unobserved automated office BP is similar to other clinic BP measurements: a prospective randomized study. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2018;20(10):1411–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Bauer F, Seibert FS, Rohn B, Bauer KAR, Rolshoven E, Babel N, et al. Attended versus unattended blood pressure measurement in a real life setting. Hypertension. 2018;71(2):243–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Andreadis EA, Geladari CV, Angelopoulos ET, Savva FS, Georgantoni AI, Papademetriou V. Attended and unattended automated office blood pressure measurements have better agreement with ambulatory monitoring than conventional office readings. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018;7(8).
  48. 48.
    D’Sa L, et al. Evaluation of the Omron HEM-907 automated blood pressure device: comparison with office and ambulatory blood pressure readings. Hypertens Res. 2019;42(1):52–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Drawz PE, Pajewski NM, Bates JT, Bello NA, Cushman WC, Dwyer JP, et al. Effect of intensive versus standard clinic-based hypertension management on ambulatory blood pressure: results from the SPRINT (systolic blood pressure intervention trial) ambulatory blood pressure study. Hypertension. 2017;69(1):42–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Cushman WC, et al. Effects of intensive blood-pressure control in type 2 diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(17):1575–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Stergiou GS, Tzamouranis D, Protogerou A, Nasothimiou E, Kapralos C. Validation of the microlife watch BP Office professional device for office blood pressure measurement according to the international protocol. Blood Press Monit. 2008;13(5):299–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Kollias A, et al. Validation of the professional device for blood pressure measurement microlife WatchBP office in adults and children according to the American National Standards Institute/Association for the Advancement of medical instrumentation/International Organization for Standardization standard. Blood Press Monit. 2018;23(2):112–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Andreadis EA, et al. Home, automated office, and conventional office blood pressure as predictors of cardiovascular risk. J Am Soc Hypertens. 2017;11(3):165–170 e2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Myers MG, Valdivieso M. Evaluation of an automated sphygmomanometer for use in the office setting. Blood Press Monit. 2012;17(3):116–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Andreadis EA, Agaliotis GD, Angelopoulos ET, Tsakanikas AP, Chaveles IA, Mousoulis GP. Automated office blood pressure and 24-h ambulatory measurements are equally associated with left ventricular mass index. Am J Hypertens. 2011;24(6):661–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Andreadis EA, Agaliotis GD, Angelopoulos ET, Tsakanikas AP, Kolyvas GN, Mousoulis GP. Automated office blood pressure is associated with urine albumin excretion in hypertensive subjects. Am J Hypertens. 2012;25(9):969–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Padwal RS, Majumdar SR. Comparability of two commonly used automated office blood pressure devices in the severely obese. Blood Press Monit. 2016;21(5):313–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Handler J, Zhao Y, Egan BM. Impact of the number of blood pressure measurements on blood pressure classification in US adults: NHANES 1999-2008. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2012;14(11):751–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    • Kronish IM, Edmondson D, Shimbo D, Shaffer JA, Krakoff LR, Schwartz JE. A comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of common office blood pressure monitoring protocols. Am J Hypertens. 2018. This carefully conducted study examined the relative value of various combinations of obtaining up to 5 BP meaurements in a visit and obtaining BP measurements over the course of up to 5 separate office visits. The authors concluded that averaging 2 BP measurements over 2 visits yielded optimal results but acknowledged that averaging 2–3 readings in one visit may be more efficient. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Boonyasai RT, Rakotz MK, Lubomski LH, Daniel DM, Marsteller JA, Taylor KS, et al. Measure accurately, act rapidly, and partner with patients: an intuitive and practical three-part framework to guide efforts to improve hypertension control. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2017;19(7):684–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Myers MG. Automated blood pressure measurement for diagnosing hypertension. Blood Press Monit. 2007;12(6):405–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    • Stergiou GS, et al. Blood pressure measurement in special populations and circumstances. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2018;20(7):1122–7 A concise summary of issues affecting the validity of BP measurements in special patient populations and how to address them. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Greiver M, White D, Kaplan DM, Katz K, Moineddin R, Dolabchian E. Where should automated blood pressure measurements be taken? Pilot RCT of BpTRU measurements taken in private or nonprivate areas of a primary care office. Blood Press Monit. 2012;17(3):137–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Chambers LW, Kaczorowski J, O’Rielly S, Ignagni S, Hearps SJC. Comparison of blood pressure measurements using an automated blood pressure device in community pharmacies and family physicians’ offices: a randomized controlled trial. CMAJ Open. 2013;1(1):E37–42.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Armstrong D, Matangi M, Brouillard D, Myers MG. Automated office blood pressure—being alone and not location is what matters most. Blood Press Monit. 2015;20(4):204–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Allison C. BpTRU(tm) blood pressure monitor for use in a physician’s office. Issues Emerg Health Technol. 2006;86:1–4.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Stergiou G, Kollias A, Parati G, O’Brien E. Office blood pressure measurement: the weak cornerstone of hypertension diagnosis. Hypertension. 2018;71(5):813–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Johnson KC, Whelton PK, Cushman WC, Cutler JA, Evans GW, Snyder JK, et al. Blood pressure measurement in SPRINT (systolic blood pressure intervention trial). Hypertension. 2018;71(5):848–57.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Kollias A, Stambolliu E, Kyriakoulis KG, Gravvani A, Stergiou GS. Unattended versus attended automated office blood pressure: systematic review and meta-analysis of studies using the same methodology for both methods. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2018. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Colella TJF, Tahsinul A, Gatto H, Oh P, Myers MG. Antecedent rest may not be necessary for automated office blood pressure at lower treatment targets. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2018;20:1160–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Wright JT, et al. A randomized trial of intensive versus standard blood-pressure control. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(22):2103–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Myers MG, Colella TJF. Response to the letter to the editor on “antecedent rest may not be necessary for automated office blood pressure at lower treatment targets”. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2018;20(12):1749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Moore MN, Schultz MG, Nelson MR, Black JA, Dwyer NB, Hoban E, et al. Identification of the optimal protocol for automated office blood pressure measurement among patients with treated hypertension. Am J Hypertens. 2018;31(3):299–304.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Myers MG, Valdivieso M, Kiss A. Optimum frequency of office blood pressure measurement using an automated sphygmomanometer. Blood Press Monit. 2008;13(6):333–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Wohlfahrt P, Cífková R, Movsisyan N, Kunzová Š, Lešovský J, Homolka M, et al. Threshold for diagnosing hypertension by automated office blood pressure using random sample population data. J Hypertens. 2016;34(11):2180–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Boonyasai RT, Carson KA, Marsteller JA, Dietz KB, Noronha GJ, Hsu YJ, et al. A bundled quality improvement program to standardize clinical blood pressure measurement in primary care. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2018;20(2):324–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Doane J, Buu J, Penrod MJ, Bischoff M, Conroy MB, Stults B. Measuring and managing blood pressure in a primary care setting: a pragmatic implementation study. J Am Board Fam Med. 2018;31(3):375–88.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    • Cabana MD, et al. Why don’t physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement. JAMA. 1999;282(15):1458–65 This still influential systematic review provides a useful theoretical framework to guide quality improvement activities. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    • Handler J, Lackland DT. Translation of hypertension treatment guidelines into practice: a review of implementation. J Am Soc Hypertens. 2011;5(4):197–207 This article provides helpful guidance for implementing a hypertension improvement program within medium-sized and large primary care practice groups. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Chapman JA, Johnson JA. On the spot! Peer validation of BP measurement competence. Nurs Manag. 2013;44(9):22–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    • Myers MG, et al. Automated office blood pressure measurement in primary care. Can Fam Physician. 2014;60(2):127–32 Another useful review for using AOBP in primary care settings. PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Yarows SA. How to measure blood pressure in primary care offices to assure accuracy while maintaining efficiency. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2017;19(12):1386–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Romsai T. Boonyasai
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Erika L. McCannon
    • 2
  • Joseph E. Landavaso
    • 2
  1. 1.Division of General Internal MedicineJohn Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.Center for Health EquityJohns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations