OBJECTIVE: We describe the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) blood pressure (BP) observer training and protocol standardization and evaluate the quality of BP measurement. METHODS: The participants were persons aged 8 years and older who had their BP measured (n=7467) during NHANES 1999-2000. Cuff width/arm circumference ratio (CW/AC), end digit preference, and observer agreement were examined. RESULTS: In stepwise principal components multiple regression analysis, CW/AC accounted for less than 2% of variability R(2) in all readings. The frequencies for all end digits were close to 20% ("0" end digit=21% systolic and 23% diastolic). No overall observer effect was present for mean systolic BP readings. A significant observer effect (P<.0001) was detected for mean diastolic BP readings of <90 mm Hg. For readings of > or =90 mm Hg, there was no significant observer effect (P=.157). CONCLUSION: We conclude that NHANES BP measurements do not demonstrate the variability that is commonly caused by observer and technical error.
OBJECTIVE: We describe the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) blood pressure (BP) observer training and protocol standardization and evaluate the quality of BP measurement. METHODS: The participants were persons aged 8 years and older who had their BP measured (n=7467) during NHANES 1999-2000. Cuff width/arm circumference ratio (CW/AC), end digit preference, and observer agreement were examined. RESULTS: In stepwise principal components multiple regression analysis, CW/AC accounted for less than 2% of variability R(2) in all readings. The frequencies for all end digits were close to 20% ("0" end digit=21% systolic and 23% diastolic). No overall observer effect was present for mean systolic BP readings. A significant observer effect (P<.0001) was detected for mean diastolic BP readings of <90 mm Hg. For readings of > or =90 mm Hg, there was no significant observer effect (P=.157). CONCLUSION: We conclude that NHANES BP measurements do not demonstrate the variability that is commonly caused by observer and technical error.
Authors: Rebecca B Lipton; Melinda L Drum; Kirstie K Danielson; Siri Aw Greeley; Graeme I Bell; William A Hagopian Journal: Pediatr Diabetes Date: 2011-03-23 Impact factor: 4.866
Authors: Jacqueline D Wright; June Stevens; Charles Poole; Katherine M Flegal; Chirayath Suchindran Journal: Am J Hypertens Date: 2010-03-25 Impact factor: 2.689
Authors: Quynh C Nguyen; Joyce W Tabor; Pamela P Entzel; Yan Lau; Chirayath Suchindran; Jon M Hussey; Carolyn T Halpern; Kathleen Mullan Harris; Eric A Whitsel Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 4.822
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