Literature DB >> 12488650

Hidden errors of aneroid sphygmomanometers.

Jason J S Waugh1, Manesh Gupta, Julie Rushbrook, Aidan Halligan, Andrew H Shennan.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Measurement of blood pressure remains the most commonly performed screening test in medical practice. With the likely removal of mercury sphygmomanometers from the workplace alternative devices are required. Of these the aneroid sphygmomanometer is popular both in the community and hospital setting. We investigated the accuracy of all the aneroid and mercury sphygmomanometers during dynamic calibration within a tertiary referral maternity hospital.
METHODS: We compared the accuracy of 39 aneroid and 36 mercury sphygmomanometers to a recently calibrated and serviced mercury sphygmomanometer (the accepted gold standard). All devices were in current clinical use. Using three blinded, trained observers, 30 different pressures were checked throughout the pressure range following British Hypertension Society protocol guidelines.
RESULTS: Only 31 (86%) of the mercury devices and 36 (92%) of the aneroid devices were in adequate working condition and suitable for analysis. Significantly more aneroid devices had systematic errors of > 5 mmHg (19 versus 3%, < 0.05). Fifty percent of aneroid devices had at least one reading > 10 mmHg out compared to only 10% of mercury devices (chi square programme).
CONCLUSIONS: Aneroid sphygmomanometers in apparent good working order are inaccurate compared to mercury devices. Some of these faults can only be detected during dynamic testing. To minimize the risk of erroneous blood pressure recording, aneroid devices should be regularly checked for accuracy using dynamic calibration methods as recommended in validation protocols. Copyright 2002 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12488650     DOI: 10.1097/00126097-200212000-00003

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


  10 in total

1.  The extent of inaccurate aneroid sphygmomanometers in a hospital setting.

Authors:  Dimitri A Cozanitis; Christopher J Jones
Journal:  Wien Med Wochenschr       Date:  2010-07

2.  Type and accuracy of sphygmomanometers in primary care: a cross-sectional observational study.

Authors:  Christine A'Court; Richard Stevens; Sarah Sanders; Alison Ward; Richard McManus; Carl Heneghan
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 5.386

3.  Agreement of blood pressure measurements between random-zero and standard mercury sphygmomanometers.

Authors:  Wenjie Yang; Dongfeng Gu; Jing Chen; Cashell E Jaquish; D C Rao; Xigui Wu; James E Hixson; Xiufang Duan; Tanika N Kelly; L Lee Hamm; Paul K Whelton; Jiang He
Journal:  Am J Med Sci       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 2.378

4.  Misclassification and discordance of measured blood pressure from patient's true blood pressure in current clinical practice: a clinical trial simulation case study.

Authors:  Yuyan Jin; Robert Bies; Marc R Gastonguay; Norman Stockbridge; Jogarao Gobburu; Rajanikanth Madabushi
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2012-05-09       Impact factor: 2.745

Review 5.  A literature review and best practice advice for second and third trimester risk stratification, monitoring, and management of pre-eclampsia: Compiled by the Pregnancy and Non-Communicable Diseases Committee of FIGO (the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics).

Authors:  Liona C Poon; Laura A Magee; Stefan Verlohren; Andrew Shennan; Peter von Dadelszen; Eyal Sheiner; Eran Hadar; Gerard Visser; Fabricio Da Silva Costa; Anil Kapur; Fionnuala McAuliffe; Amala Nazareth; Muna Tahlak; Anne B Kihara; Hema Divakar; H David McIntyre; Vincenzo Berghella; Huixia Yang; Roberto Romero; Kypros H Nicolaides; Nir Melamed; Moshe Hod
Journal:  Int J Gynaecol Obstet       Date:  2021-07       Impact factor: 4.447

Review 6.  Current best practice in the management of hypertensive disorders in pregnancy.

Authors:  Rosemary Townsend; Patrick O'Brien; Asma Khalil
Journal:  Integr Blood Press Control       Date:  2016-07-27

Review 7.  Sources of inaccuracy in the measurement of adult patients' resting blood pressure in clinical settings: a systematic review.

Authors:  Noa Kallioinen; Andrew Hill; Mark S Horswill; Helen E Ward; Marcus O Watson
Journal:  J Hypertens       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 4.844

8.  Perception and Knowledge of Mercury by Occupationally Exposed Health Care Personnel.

Authors:  Isabel Álvarez-Solorza; Luz D Upegui-Arango; Víctor Borja-Aburto; Norma González-González; Felix Fischer; L Patricia Bustamante-Montes
Journal:  J Contin Educ Health Prof       Date:  2022-01-01       Impact factor: 2.190

9.  Blood pressure measurements and hypertension in infants, children, and adolescents: from the postmercury to mobile devices.

Authors:  Seon Hee Lim; Seong Heon Kim
Journal:  Clin Exp Pediatr       Date:  2021-09-15

10.  Measurement of the ankle brachial index with a non-mercury sphygmomanometer in diabetic patients: a concordance study.

Authors:  Magdalena Bundó; Magali Urrea; Laura Muñoz-Ortíz; Carmen Pérez; Judit Llussà; Rosa Forés; María Teresa Alzamora; Pere Torán
Journal:  BMC Cardiovasc Disord       Date:  2013-03-08       Impact factor: 2.298

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.