English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is considered the gold standard for BP measurement, compared to clinic BP measurements (CBP), which are a less valid predictor of target organ damage and cardiovascular events. However, ABPM is considerably more expensive than CBP, leaving BP researchers with a difficult dilemma: Use the less efficient CBP measure, or bear the cost of the more expensive ABPM. Recent developments in missing data methods, notably the two-method measurement (TMM) design, address this problem. With the TMM design, all research participants receive the less expensive CBP measure, but only a random subset receives the more expensive ABPM. The total number of participants must be increased, with additional participants receiving only CBP measurements. Even so, the TMM still reduces costs.

Increasing the Validity and Efficiency of Blood Pressure Estimates Using Ambulatory and Clinic Measurements and Modern Missing Data Methods