Precision, consistency, and reproducibility of blood pressure in diabetic and non-diabetic pregnancy: the appraisal of repeated measurements

References

• Brown MA, Bowyer L, McHugh L, Davis GK, Mangos GJ, Jones M. Twenty-four-hour automated blood pressure monitoring as a predictor of preeclampsia. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001; 185: 618–22
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flores L, Levy I, Aquilera E, Martinez S, Gomis R, Estmatjes E. Usefulness of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 1999; 22: 1507–11
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Penny JA, Halligan AW, Shennan AH, Lambert PC, Jones DR, de Swiet M, et al. Automated, ambulatory or conventional blood pressure measurement in pregnancy: which is the better predictor of severe hypertension?. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998; 178: 521–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hermida RC, Ayala DE, Mojon A, Fernandez JR, Alonso I, Aguilar MF, et al. Differences in circadian blood pressure variability during gestation between healthy and complicated pregnancies. Am J Hypertens. 2003; 16: 200–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peek M, Shennan A, Halligan A, Lambert PC, Taylor DJ, De Swiet M. Hypertension in pregnancy: which method of blood pressure measurement is most predictive of outcome?. Obstet Gynecol. 1996; 88: 1030–3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glavind-Kristensen M, Petersen OB, Forman A. Effects of ouabain on the isolated human uteroplacental vasculature. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998; 178: 892–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petersen OB, Skajaa K, Svane D, Gregersen H, Forman A. The effects of dihydralazine, labetalol and magnesium sulphate on the isolated, perfused human placental cotyledon. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1994; 101: 871–8
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cugini P, Di Palma L, Battisti P, Leone G, Pachi A, Paesano R, et al. Describing and interpreting 24-hour blood pressure patterns in physiologic pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992; 166(1 Pt1): 54–60
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Napoli A, DiBiase N, Mazziotti F, Marceca M, Sabbatini A, Fallucca F. Blood pressure monitoring in diabetic pregnancy. Ann Ist Super Sanitá. 1997; 33: 337–41
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ekbom P, Damm P, Nørgaard K, Clausen P, Feldt-Rasmussen U, Feldt-Rasmussen B, et al. Urinary albumin excretion and 24-hour blood pressure as predictors of pre-eclampsia in Type I diabetes. Diabetologia. 2000; 43: 927–31
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lauszus FF, Rasmussen OW, Lousen T, Klebe TM, Klebe JG. Ambulatory blood pressure as predictor of preeclampsia in diabetic pregnancies with respect to urinary albumin excretion rate and glycemic regulation. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2001; 80: 1096–103
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shennan AH, Kissane J, deSwiet M. Validation of the SpaceLabs 90207 ambulatory blood pressure monitor for use in pregnancy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1993; 100: 904–8
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shennan A, Halligan A, Gupta M, Taylor D, deSwiet M. Oscillometric blood pressure measurements in severe pre-eclampsia: Validation of the SpaceLabs 90207. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1996; 106: 171–3
   Google Scholar
• Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986; i: 307–10
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O'Brien E, Sheridan J, Browne T, Conroy R, O'Malley K. Validation of the Spacelabs 90202 ambulatory blood pressure recorder. J Hypertens. 1988; 7(suppl 6)S388–9
   Google Scholar
• O'Brien E, O'Malley K, Sheridan J. The need for a standardized protocol for validating non-invasive ambulatory blood pressure measuring devices. J Hypertens Suppl. 1989; 7: S19–20
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Santucci S, Steiner D, Zimbler M, James GD, Pichkering TG. Validation study of the Spacelabs models 90202 and 5200 ambulatory blood pressure monitors. J Ambulat Monit. 1988; 1: 211–6
   Google Scholar
• O'Brien E, Mee F, Atkins N, Halligan A, O'Malley K. Accuracy of the SpaceLabs 90207 ambulatory blood pressure measuring system in normotensive pregnant women determined by the British Hypertension Society protocol. J Hypertens Suppl. 1993; 11(suppl 5)S282–3
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• O'Brien E, Mee F, Atkins N, O'Malley K. Inaccuracy of the Hawksley random zero sphygmomanometer. Lancet. 1990; 336: 1465–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansen KW. Ambulatory blood pressure in insulin-dependent diabetes: the relation to stages of diabetic kidney disease. J Diabetes Compl. 1996; 10: 331–51
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Ittersum FJ, Wijering RMJ, Lambert J, Donker AJM, Stehower CDA. Determinants of the limits of agreement between the sphygmomanometer and the SpaceLabs 90207 device for blood pressure measurement in healthy volunteers and insulin-dependent diabetic patients. J Hypertens. 1998; 16: 1125–30
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higgins JR, Walshe JJ, Halligan A, O'Brien E, Conroy R, Darling MRN. Can 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure measurement predict the development of hypertension in primigravidae?. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997; 104: 356–62
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kyle PM, Clark SJ, Buckley D, Kissane J, Coats AJS, de Swiet M, et al. Second trimester ambulatory blood pressure in nulliparous pregnancy: a useful screening test for preeclampsia?. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1993; 100: 914–9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ohkubo T, Asayama K, Kikuya M, Metoki H, Hoshi H, Hashimoto J, et al. Ohasama Study. How many times should blood pressure be measured at home for better prediction of stroke risk? Ten-year follow-up results from the Ohasama Study. J Hypertens. 2004; 22: 1099–104
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar