Literature DB >> 12055421

How should we measure blood pressure in the doctor's office?

W Gerin1, R M Marion, R Friedman, G D James, D H Bovbjerg, T G Pickering.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Blood pressure is the most ubiquitous diagnostic recording made in the doctor's office, but the measurement is subject to a number of sources of bias, which may lead to over- or underestimation. The current study examined the systematic influence of the way in which the measurements were taken - by the physician, by a nurse, or with the patient sitting alone, using an automated device. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Blood pressure was measured in 17 essential hypertensive and 10 white-coat hypertensive individuals. On separate clinic visits, measurements were taken by the attending physician, by a nurse and using an automated device (Arteriosonde 1216).
RESULTS: A repeated-measures ANOVA revealed that, for systolic pressure, there was a significant effect of measurement modality on blood pressure. Physician systolic pressures were on average approximately 10 mmHg higher than those taken by a nurse, nurse pressures being approximately 7 mmHg higher than those recorded using Arteriosonde. The effect on diastolic pressure was similar but smaller, and no nurse-Arteriosonde difference was observed.
CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the routine clinical assessment of blood pressure would be more representative of daily ambulatory pressure if an automated device, without doctor or nurse present, were used.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 12055421     DOI: 10.1097/00126097-200110000-00006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Blood Press Monit        ISSN: 1359-5237            Impact factor:   1.444


  13 in total

1.  Variability of office, 24-hour ambulatory, and self-monitored blood pressure measurements.

Authors:  Roderick E Warren; Tom Marshall; Paul L Padfield; Sigrun Chrubasik
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 5.386

Review 2.  Doctors record higher blood pressures than nurses: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Christopher E Clark; Isabella A Horvath; Rod S Taylor; John L Campbell
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 5.386

3.  Thirty-minute compared to standardised office blood pressure measurement in general practice.

Authors:  Nynke Scherpbier-de Haan; Mark van der Wel; Gijs Schoenmakers; Steve Boudewijns; Petronella Peer; Chris van Weel; Theo Thien; Carel Bakx
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 5.386

Review 4.  National surveillance definitions for hypertension prevalence and control among adults.

Authors:  Matthew T Crim; Sung Sug Sarah Yoon; Eduardo Ortiz; Hilary K Wall; Susan Schober; Cathleen Gillespie; Paul Sorlie; Nora Keenan; Darwin Labarthe; Yuling Hong
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes       Date:  2012-05-01

5.  Preventing misdiagnosis of ambulatory hypertension: algorithm using office and home blood pressures.

Authors:  Daichi Shimbo; Sujith Kuruvilla; Donald Haas; Thomas G Pickering; Joseph E Schwartz; William Gerin
Journal:  J Hypertens       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 4.844

6.  The misdiagnosis of hypertension: the role of patient anxiety.

Authors:  Gbenga Ogedegbe; Thomas G Pickering; Lynn Clemow; William Chaplin; Tanya M Spruill; Gabrielle M Albanese; Kazuo Eguchi; Matthew Burg; William Gerin
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2008-12-08

7.  Accuracy of blood pressure measurements reported in an electronic medical record during routine primary care visits.

Authors:  Paul A Fishman; Melissa L Anderson; Andrea J Cook; James D Ralston; Sheryl L Catz; Jim Carlson; Eric B Larson; Beverly B Green
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2011-09-13       Impact factor: 3.738

8.  Professors: the world is not flat.

Authors:  Steven A Yarows
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 3.738

Review 9.  Automated measurement of blood pressure in routine clinical practice.

Authors:  Martin G Myers; Marshall Godwin
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 3.738

10.  Local and systemic cardiovascular effects from monochromatic infrared therapy in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study.

Authors:  Ru-Lan Hsieh; Wei-Cheng Liao; Wen-Chung Lee
Journal:  Evid Based Complement Alternat Med       Date:  2012-06-27       Impact factor: 2.629

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.