Talk:Blood pressure

message: "The clear trend from double blind clinical trials (for the better strategies and agents) has increasingly been that lower BP is found to result in less disease".
: This statement is somewhat confusing and only partially true. although beneficial effect of BP lowering is well documented in studies like RENAAL, IDNT, AASK, HOPE  and especially in wisconsin study   BP lower than accepted normal protects against renal  disease in type 1 DM,  but broader situation is much complex. Low BP has higher risk of stroke in CKD patients  and higher risk of dementia and depression . Understanding of low blood pressure and effect on disease is still in early stage and not within scope of encyclopedia.--Countincr ( T@lk ) 19:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Low blood pressure 

message: Footnote 1 is not linking to a PDF document anymore 210.9.143.73 20:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote linking problem 

message: BLOOD PRESSURE IS SOMETIMES CAUSED BY PEOPLE WHEN THEY GET ANGRY AND THEIR BLOOD PRESSURE GETS HIGH.ALSO BIG/FAT PEOPLE HAS THIS AND THEY HAVE TO TAKE MEDICINE, BUT SOMETIMES THEY GET SO MAD THEY HAVE A HEART ATTACK OR STROKE SOMETIMES.IT DEPENDS ON THE PERSON.BLOOD PRESSURE IS CALL BY OTHER THINGS BUT MOSTLY THAT .
:This is not true. Most blood pressure problems are not due to mental state; 95% have no clear underlying cause. The remainder is due to hormonal or kidney problems. It is a common misconception that someone's "blood pressure is up". It is also a common misconception that high blood pressure leads to headaches. This happens only in the most severe cases. JFW | T@lk 15:55, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some causes 

message: How does sleep effect your blood pressure?
what can happen to you with high blood pressure
:I believe that recent results show that blood pressure peaks early in the morning, before you rise, which is not what was believed before. Consequently the best time to take medicine for blood pressure is at night. PLEASE confirm and source before adding this information to the article. Pol098 01:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sleep and pressure 

message: The larger arteries, including all large enough to see without magnification, are low resistance (assuming no advanced atherosclerotic changes) and conduit vessels with high flow rates but producing very little pressure drop. For instance, about 5 mmHg mean pressure decrease in the blood flow traveling from the heart all the way to the toes is typical, assuming the individual is supine (horizontal with respect to gravity).
This paragraph is icomplete without some mention of how far the blood pressure falls through the capillaries; the readers deserve context to compare that 5 mmHg figure to. As it is now, scientifically rigorous readers need to scroll all the way down the page to find out that blood returns to the heart at about 5 total mmHg. (I guess that means a drop of ca. 65 mmHg in the capillaries and 5 mmHg in the veins? 5+5+5+65=80?) Doops |  talk 04:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  incomplete ¶ 

message: Causes of high blood pressure may be, as I understand it, one or more of flow constriction(s), amount of blood and viscosity.  Besides the possiblity of dietary salt increasing amount of blood, are there any dietary or drug factors that are believed to affect esp. viscosity [considering that high vicosity could possibly a cause of TIA by starvation rather than hæmorrhage].  If so, would heavy exercise enhance or mitigate the factors? 
L--202.164.205.125 02:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally it increases, as the peripheral resistance increases (hardening/narrowing of the arteries etc...) --John24601 22:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  High blood pressure - viscosity, dietary and drug causes 

message: B.P. IN PARALYSED UPPR LIMB IN PATIENT WITH CVA IS THE SAME AS HEALTHY ONE
if your extremeties "Fall asleep" easily/quickly, is this caused by low blood pressure?
:Yes, more specfically the primary affected neurons are ischemic (lack of oxygen, due to poor circulation) and lose their ability to transmit their mechano and chemo sensing signals to the brain.
The uncomfortable sensation is the un-coordinated reassembly of those signals as the neurons regain their oxygen debt. 
Low blood pressure also effects photo-receptors (eyes), so when you stand up quickly as the blood pressure falls in your head, your vision is impaired.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.45.225 (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  blood pressur 

message: This problem occurs while standing still for several minutes and goes away as soon as I recline to a sitting position. Does anyone have a perspective on this condition? I'm am taking several medications for high blood pressure.69.143.195.248 17:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Present in many healthy individuals and usually is not a cause for concern. Can be related to beta blocker. Please remember this is not a page for general discussion. --Countincr ( T@lk ) 18:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It's due to the way blood is circulated around the body, veins normally are placed between skeletal muscles in your legs, so as you walk to "pump" veins through valves and against gravity. People with poor circulation will be more prone to this type of problem.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.45.225 (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbness in the thighs when standing still for several minutes. 

message: Target values are listed. Text refers to ranges.  What are desirable ranges?  
DGerman 13:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  targets are not ranges 

message: The ranges for both systolic and diastolic pressures are so varied that there is no true range for diagnostic comparability.
:Is that the dynamic range of those pressures for an individual, under activity, or are you (I actually think) merely meaning the resting  arterial systolic and diastolic pressures.  The thing is, the final paragraph seems to contradict the opening of the section.  And I don't find any mention of how an individual's blood pressure should vary with pulse/activity.  I.e. what an individual's ranges of pressures should be.--SportWagon 18:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification might help 

message: There are lots of obvious See Also links which are not there, although they are mentioned earlier in the article.  Is that because some wikipedia guideline says not to add to See Also articles which have already been linked?  If so, I think that's dumb. (I'll explain further if asked). If not, well, I'll go ahead and add a pile more See Also links if no-one else does first.--SportWagon 18:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the page to Categories "Blood", and also "Cardiovascular System".  That might fulfill the type of "See Also"s I was thinking of, or at least will when yet more articles are added to those categories.  (Aside: Maintenance Categories should be displayed apart from Reference Categories).--SportWagon 16:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guideline says don't add internal links to See Also? 

message: The result was to merge Home blood pressure monitoring into Blood pressure. --B. Wolterding 11:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposed: Home blood pressure monitoring 

message: I have merged the articles. Some cleanup and shortening may be required; however, since I am not a subject-matter expert, I leave the cleanup to those who are. --B. Wolterding 11:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger executed 

message: I'm a family doctor in the UK and have an interest in blood pressure
I think the article needs a section about high blood pressure symptoms. I've added the start of one with some references
:There already was a Hypertension article discussing that in detail.  If you want to add some of your wording to that, you can retrieve it from the edit history of  this current article (Blood pressure).  Even in the context this article, your section was inappropriately placed.  "Blood Pressure" does not refer only to "High Blood Pressure".  But as far as I can see, Hypertension covered all your points in even greater detail.--SportWagon 19:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - I've no problem with that GordonMarjory 20:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blood Pressure Symptoms 

message: This article fails a potential valuable public health function by providing the interested reader with no pointers to even the rudiments like the value of knowing one's blood pressure or the need to seek immediate medical consult if blood pressure is over 240/180, to say nothing of the value of weight loss, salt restriction, diuretics, ACE inhibitors, etc.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdcntx (talk • contribs) 20:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps see Hypertension and Hypotension, etc, which are referenced in the text.  And there's a whole section on Home monitoring which, IMHO, should have been left as a separate article referenced from here.  Besides, wikipedia is not a public health service.  Nonetheless, a reader could infer your suggestions after a complete reading of the text here.--SportWagon 14:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I see you, apparently in response to this, created lots of hypertension links.  While that is an action I personally would agree with, beware that there are some who would say redundant links are wrong according to policy.  Sigh.--SportWagon 20:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blood Pressure Treatment: remarkable silence of this article 

message: There is disagreement among hypertension experts as to whether white-coat hypertension should be considered a true hypertension or not. Many experts, but by no means all, think that white-coat HTN is a variation or a forme-fruste of HTN, caused in part by excessive catecholamine outflows. The section seems to give the impression that there is no disagreement.--Bwthemoose/Talk 19:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  White-coat Hypertension 

message: What is the lowest possible blood pressure one can have without sustaining injuries? Short term and long term.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.211.131.68 (talk • contribs) 
:Due to individual differences in metabolism and physiology of humans, there will never be an answer to that question.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.45.225 (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lowest Possible Blood Pressure 

message: I think the first two paragraphs of the "Normal values" section in the article are a misinterpretation of the term "normal" with regards to a person's physiological state. My understanding of normal in a medical context is that it refers to the state of a normal healthy functioning body  or part of a body. This is not necessarily the same as the average value for a given population. For example, the average weight of the U.S. population is abnormally high. 
In the second paragraph it is appropriate to speak of the normal values of children being different than for adults. However, it does not seem appropriate to speak of the normal values of adults changing as they age. The average values of adults will change with age but the values for a normal healthy functioning body remain the same. The increase in blood pressure with age from stiffening of arteries, for example, is pathological not normal, in the context of this discussion. One can speak of normal changes due to aging, but normal in this sense means expected, rather than nonpathological.
I would be interested in other editors' comments on this. Is it clear, right, wrong, whatever. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Normal values

message: The values I'm finding are all over the ball park and the old rule mentioned that your pressure should 
be for a male 100 plus your age (and miunus 10for a female) is debated ; so  that normal people csan not
be sure what is OK level , esp with doctor  encouragement to take pills if over 130/80.  And so for older persons, as  say a 55 year old person ,lthat older rule used for decades would mean  155 is ok , but many
want to put you on a pill....
So the article does not address this,. and perhaps can not.
/s/ harold von salk 69.121.221.97 (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Normal As You Age

message: I think this phrase may be misleading:
The diastolic blood pressure can not be estimated by this method.
I think the reference is referring to the use of palpation in combination with a sphygmanometer, but it could be read as applying to all uses of palpation.
The most likely use of palpation is in regard to shock and, in that case, if the systolic pressure is barely enough to detect, the diastolic one obviously isn't, however, as original research, so you can't use it in the article, my impression is that one can estimate both diastolic and systolic, for normal to high ranges, by the onset and termination of the pulse as one increases pressure on the artery.
-- David Woolley (talk) 13:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palpation 

message: Is it normal for your blood pressure to go to 160/89 in the AM (this is while drinking coffee and doing you AM tasks)?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.67.64.21 (talk) 14:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:NOTAMANUAL and WP:NOTAFORUM - Wiki is not a place to get medical advice, nor are article talk pages the place to discuss the subject of the article, other than regarding ways to improve the article. Since you have a medical concern, you should see your physician (if you have one) or go to a health clinic. I wish you all the best, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  blood pressure 

message: The large sections of unreferenced text concerns me.  Will nominate for GAR.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Large unreferenced section

message: I havent found any mention of this in the article, though I may have missed it, and I believe it is a rather important piece of info:-
Blood Pressure = Cardiac Output X Peripherial Resistance
It is important as it is used to calculate blood pressure and in the choice of treatment.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.126.21 (talk) 22:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  BP = COxPR 

message: Why is blood pressure not measured in pascals, a proper SI unit? Medicine is, after all, a science. 78.86.61.94 (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's my take (based on some medical experience and lots of casual conversations using scientific values). Blood pressure has been measured for a loooong time, well before all of science tried to organize around a unified and consistent system of measurements. Many medical values got stuck as "how they have always been done". This particular one is often done using a mercury manometer (though that is changing in some settings), so you don't need to calibrate it with any sort of standard or convert, just measure the height. The standard values people recognize are nice round ones in mmHg (multiples of 10) with good resolution as integer values. Many fields of medicine use non-SI units because it would be dangerous to have a technician get confused because the values are often reported with no units--imagine a first responder calling out a bp of 70 kPa..."70" is a pretty good diastolic (because it is...if one promptly recognizes mmHg values), so might not consider hypotension as a likely situation (the bp is actually only around 50 mmHg!). DMacks (talk) 01:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units 

message: There should be a mention of ambulatory BP-monitoring units, commonly called "holders", which provide a statistically more reliable record of a person's current BP.-The Gnome (talk) 04:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: 24-hour BP monitoring

message: I would like to know about how many blood pressures are taken daily in the unites states,  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.78.134 (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  blood pressures taken daily 

message: Rather than  have a sentence at the top of the article saying "See hypertension for information on high blood pressure", I feel it would improve article to have a "See also" section at the end, where high blood pressure or hypertension could be listed. This would certainly be consistent with lots of other Wikipedia articles. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: How to improve general presentation and layout

message: It is hereby suggested that:
*The current Blood pressure article is moved to Systemic arterial blood pressure
*User:Mikael Häggström/Blood pressure is subsequently moved to Blood pressure
*Comment: I've made a suggested start of the Blood pressure article as it should look to broaden the scope, at User:Mikael Häggström/Blood pressure. Much is duplicate information taken from current blood pressure article, but the physiology section is largely new material, which cannot conveniently be added anywhere in Wikipedia in the current state. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should try really hard to keep a "Blood pressure" article that deals with what most people refer to as blood pressure. So in my mind, a comprehensive covering of Systemic arterial blood pressure as the majority of the article, with the addition of smaller, much summarised sections as necessary (not sure on the specifics as this isn't my area). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs)  18:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, alternatively, putting systemic arterial blood pressure at the top of the new article as in the latest update of the suggested alternative. On the other hand, keeping the current text in the Blood pressure article would necessitate, amongst many other modifications, a more clear demarcation that its subject is Systemic arterial blood pressure, probably by adding a top-level header named something like "Systemic arterial blood pressure" near its beginning, including all the content down to Blood pressure#Other sites, which probably needs to be a separate top-level header as well. Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Replacement of current blood pressure article

message: Instead of the previously suggested move above, I think the content regarding systemic arterial blood pressure in this article should have an own top-level header, thereby distinguishing from blood pressure at other sites. As systemic arterial blood pressure is the main type referred to, it may still be emphasized in the lead section, but with a statement implying that it's not the only one, such as "When used without further specification, "blood pressure" usually refers to systemic arterial blood pressure".
Thus, the layout would be:
*(Almost same) lead section
*Systemic arterial blood pressure (with the following sections simply becoming ===Headers=== instead of ==Headers==)
**Classification
**Pathophysiology
**Measurement
**Diseases
**Fetal blood pressure
*Blood pressure at other sites
*General physiology
The latter three sections are new or moved from information currently in the subsection of "Measurement", and are outlined in User:Mikael_Häggström/Blood_pressure. Those pieces of information are very hard to add in the current layout of the article. Mikael Häggström (talk) 12:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Own section for systemic arterial blood pressure 

message: In a recent revision  every word diastolic in this article was changed to astolic. I'm more familiar with using diastolic so I suggest reverting this revision. Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard astolic used only rarely; the cited refs appear to use diastolic. Unless there is a WP:RS that specifically supports astolic as the "correct" one, article should use the one most commonly used in sources. DMacks (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted the revision, so that diastolic is given in the article again. Mikael Häggström (talk) 11:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astolic or diastolic? 

message: The table states that BP over 180/120 mmHg is hypertensive crisis. I'd suggest the value should be 180/110, and instead of crisis, maybe labelled "Severe" or Stage 3. http://www.aafp.org/afp/2010/0215/p470.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.77.11 (talk) 06:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Above 180mmHg - crisis or dilemma? 

message: I would like to know how is long time it's known that the blood pressure influence about our life?
and in addition, when is the begining of use the blood pressure check. thanks for help. 46.210.98.216 (talk) 01:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. I am sure someone can help you at the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The main article would be improved with a history behind the taking of blood pressure, and how other primates are known to have similar blood pressures.   This should be placed at the beginning of the article.   216.99.198.210 (talk) 00:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  some material dealing with this is in History of hypertension Adh (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  From where is known the influence of blood pressure 

message: The main article implies that blood pressure is usually measured in terms of millimeters of Mercury.   That begs the question.   What other liquids are available for comparison?
The only other one I've seen used is cmH2O, but very rarely these days. Hg is used since it's pretty much the densest liquid that's reasonably abundant, but you could make a manometer with any fluid you want. 99.172.17.253 (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other than Mercury 

message: Does spending long periods of time in a submarine result in different readings for the blood pressure of the occupants?   For instance, 48 hours at 200 feet below the surface.   How long does it take the human body to respond (and adjust) to the pressure differences?
Are there any research studies for this sort of thing?    Any links to the research studies would help me understand the main article.   216.99.198.210 (talk) 00:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Underwater blood pressures? 

message: The picture showing high blood pressure in a narrow artery illustrates incorrect physics.  The faster fluid flow though a narrow artery would result in a lower pressure "in the artery", not a higher one as depicted. Relabeling to show a different pressure at the entrance, nor the exit, to the artery would correct the error.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.95.118 (talk) 03:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physiology picture Blood Pressure Blood Flow 

message: A decent reorganization effort was made a few years ago at Talk:Blood_pressure#Own_section_for_systemic_arterial_blood_pressure. While it was a step in the right direction, it leaves out some key areas including regulation of blood pressure. I want to reorganize the article using MOS:MED#Symptoms_or_signs roughly as a guideline.  The sections would be something like this:
* Lead (which also needs to be rewritten to be more concise and serve as a topic overview)
* Classification
**Systemic arterial (definition and normal ranges)
**Systemic venous (CVP, JVP, portal)
**Pulmonary
* Disorders
* Physiology (this would pull together a lot of the detailed descriptions that are currently scattered throughout)
* Measurement
** Noninvasive
** Invasive
* Management (pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic)
I would definitely welcome any comments or suggestions. 02:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. In reorganizing the sections it is clear that many sections (such as blood pressure measurement) are large enough to be split off into their own articles.  There is also an article out there on Low blood pressure cascade which shouldn't be its own article. Will start tagging sections that need work. Gccwang (talk) 03:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

text: Support Needless to say, I am in favor. Gccwang (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

text: Support I think it makes sense to split this section out and retain only a summary Adh (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

text: Support I agree that this section would be best split into a new article, with a summary retained. benrusholme (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article reorganization 

message: proposes to split the section on measurement into its own new article. I support this idea because this section is long and this amount of detail is unnecessary for this article when a summary of the concept would meet the need here. Thoughts from others?  Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Support Needless to say, I am in favor. Gccwang (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

text: Support I think it makes sense to split this section out and retain only a summary Adh (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

text: Support I agree that this section would be best split into a new article, with a summary retained. benrusholme (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Split of measurement section

message: I would like to merge the page Low blood pressure cascade into this page, since its content is somewhat redundant. Citations would need to be added (the other article has no citations at all), and then it would probably incorporate into the Blood_pressure#Regulation section.  Gccwang (talk) 03:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge 

message: Two things about this section. First, "Treatment of underlying conditions" is uncited. I didn't flag, but someone should fix it as it's pretty central in a medical sense. Second, "Other substances that affect blood pressure" is entirely uncited, seems like a stub, and lists "Drugs of abuse". "Drugs of abuse" is, well, tons of things. I presume my blood pressure would be effected differently while on Ketamine as opposed to Cocaine, as opposed to Codeine, as opposed to Khat, as opposed to... you get the idea. 2601:C:AB80:3D1:BE5F:F4FF:FE35:1B41 (talk) 10:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blood pressure management 

message: I added a dubious tag with explanation here. Also there is no citation for the entire paragraph.--TMCk (talk) 04:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section: Home monitoring 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Blood pressure. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.clevelandclinicmeded.com/medicalpubs/diseasemanagement/nephrology/isosystolic/isosystolic.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150427160330/http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4650 to http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4650
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140525195425/http://www.nature.com/ajh/journal/v20/n5/abs/ajh200783a.html to http://www.nature.com/ajh/journal/v20/n5/abs/ajh200783a.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The entry says, "The risk of cardiovascular disease increases progressively above 115/75 mm Hg." As supporting evidence, it cites: 
Appel LJ, Brands MW, Daniels SR, Karanja N, Elmer PJ, Sacks FM (February 2006). "Dietary approaches to prevent and treat hypertension: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association". Hypertension 47 (2): 296–308. http://hyper.ahajournals.org/content/47/2/296 doi:10.1161/01.HYP.0000202568.01167.B6. .
2 problems with that. 
1 That scientific statement is from 2006. That's older than the references we prefer in WP:MEDRS. 
2 The scientific statement says in the abstract, "The risk of cardiovascular disease increases progressively throughout the range of BP, beginning at 115/75 mm Hg." But I can't find a source to support that anywhere in the scientific statement. 
Does anybody have a good, WP:MEDRS source to support the statement that the risk of cardiovascular disease increases starting at 115/75, even for people who are not obese, diabetic or already with a cardiovascular disease? --Nbauman (talk) 13:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree it is to old User:Nbauman. Feel free to remove / update. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  115/75? 

message: Nothing about the SPRINT trial? https://www.sprinttrial.org/public/dspHome.cfm --Nbauman (talk) 04:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: NIH SPRINT study sparks questions about overtreatment of mild hypertension http://www.healthnewsreview.org/2015/09/nih-sprint-study-sparks-questions-about-overtreatment-of-mild-hypertension/ Interviews critics of SPRINT study, particularly for releasing results in press release and not releasing the data. --Nbauman (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes we are waiting for it to be combined into high quality secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) 

message: I meant to mention this here some time ago http://www.nih.gov/news/health/sep2015/nhlbi-11.htm  - not sure if it's useful, but here it is if so. 
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: NIH paper

message: The use of a "black box" type of blood pressure monitor is accurate for these days, but quite uninformative of how the measurement actually works, and particularly why the units are "mm(Hg)". If an appropriate image is available, an old style mercury sphygomanometer (spelling?) would be an appropriate addition. IMHO.
Aidan Karley (talk) 09:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Choice of images

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Blood pressure. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cvphysiology.com/Blood%20Pressure/BP006.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cvphysiology.com/Blood%20Pressure/BP003.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140702221540/http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov:80/hbp/detect/tips.htm to http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/hbp/detect/tips.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Blood pressure. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cvphysiology.com/Blood%20Pressure/BP006.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cvphysiology.com/Blood%20Pressure/BP003.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080821165806/http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/anesthesiology-elective/cardiac/cvcphys.cfm to http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/anesthesiology-elective/cardiac/cvcphys.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The table lists 60-79 diastolic as both normal and prehypertensive. Aesthetically the rows under systolic for stage 1 and stage 2 should be switched to make them consistent with normal and prehypertensive. I would say the same is true for diastolic, but there seems another irreconcilable number conflict there.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.169.148.245 (talk) 06:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification of blood pressure table needs work 

message: The section sub-titled "Blood pressure in other animals" just talks about blood pressure in cats. Could it talk about blood pressure in animals other than cats? Vorbee (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. Feel free to add content. Wikipedia is always a work in progress. Bondegezou (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Blood pressure in other animals

message: Blood pressure means the pressure on the walls of the blood vessels due to increased flow of blood through it.Which means it's mainly due to increased blood levels in the body.There are some others reasons as well but increasing blood levels are a reason for the constance in the disease.Why can't there be medicines which can help decrease blood levels like use of some of the Vitamin B complex other than folic acid and those which increase blood?They can help reduce blood levels .What do you think can be a better way of reducing blood levels? Discuss... Wizziwizard (talk) 04:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the pressure in the circulation is due to the work done by the heart in pumping the blood through the circulation (I've revised the introduction to make this clear). This is why the blood pressure falls when the heart stops. There is a small residual pressure (seen when the heart stops for a long period) - this is due to the volume of blood and the compliance of the circulation - this is termed the mean circulatory filling pressure (MCFP). Typically this is approximately 10mmHg or less, i.e. <10% of the normal mean arterial pressure. Adh (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Control increase in blood pressure. 

message: In the Mean arterial pressure section, there is something not right about how the math formulas are displayed when using the Wikipedia App. Senator2029 “Talk”  20:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Math formatting and layout 

message: I came to this page hoping to learn a little bit about how blood pressure was discovered (i.e: who thought of it in the first place) and how it came to be measured. 
While this article includes a great deal about the technical attributes of BP, it lacks a historical perspective. I have no background in this field, but a general web search lead me to Stephen Hales, the history of hypertension and the development of the Sphygometer. I don't feel confident enough in my information to add to the article, but wanted to suggest/ request that a reference to these ideas (hypertension and the Sphygometer have references within the text, but not in a historical/ origination context) be included. 170.140.105.41 (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an article History of hypertension. TomS TDotO (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discovery of Blood pressure 

message: pls help I can't find the correct answers any where 41.115.61.4 (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to speak to your doctor, not random people on the internet. - Roxy the dog  15:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  what are risks of blood pressure and the treatment for it 

message: The article reports, what the prevailing doctrine - or ideology!? -currently indicates as limits of «normal» blood pressure versus «hypertension» - grade 1, grade 2, grade 3. These limits haven't always been the same in history and they don't respect any individual elements, particularly of age, contrary to older doctrines. These «limits of tolerance» have been lowered constantly under the benevolent eyes of the pharmaceutical, or generally medical industry. «Honny soit qui mal y pense!» For a long time there has been an accepted limit for the systolic pressure of age plus 100 or age plus 90. It would be very welcome, if someone could report the history of these limits. Werfur (talk) 13:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  history of limits of good or excessive pressure