Literature DB >> 16050862

How well do clinic-based blood pressure measurements agree with the mercury standard?

Jennifer W Kim1, Hayden B Bosworth, Corrine I Voils, Maren Olsen, Tara Dudley, Matthew Gribbin, Martha Adams, Eugene Z Oddone.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Obtaining accurate blood pressure (BP) readings is a challenge faced by health professionals. Clinical trials implement strict protocols, whereas clinical practices and studies that assess quality of care utilize a less rigorous protocol for BP measurement.
OBJECTIVE: To examine agreement between real-time clinic-based assessment of BP and the standard mercury assessment of BP.
DESIGN: Prospective reliability study. PATIENTS: One hundred patients with an International Classification of Diseases-9th edition code for hypertension were enrolled. MEASURES: Two BP measurements were obtained with the Hawksley random-zero mercury sphygmomanometer and averaged. The clinic-based BP was extracted from the computerized medical records.
RESULTS: Agreement between the mercury and clinic-based systolic blood pressure (SBP) was good, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)=0.91 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.83 to 0.94); the agreement for the mercury and clinic-based diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was satisfactory, ICC=0.77 (95% CI: 0.62 to 0.86). Overall, clinic-based readings overestimated the mercury readings, with a mean overestimation of 8.3 mmHg for SBP and 7.1 mmHg for DBP. Based on the clinic-based measure, 21% of patients were misdiagnosed with uncontrolled hypertension.
CONCLUSIONS: Health professionals should be aware of this potential difference when utilizing clinic-based BP values for making treatment decisions and/or assessing quality of care.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16050862      PMCID: PMC1490157          DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.0105.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gen Intern Med        ISSN: 0884-8734            Impact factor:   5.128


  7 in total

Review 1.  Evidence based treatment of hypertension. Measurement of blood pressure: an evidence based review.

Authors:  F A McAlister; S E Straus
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-04-14

2.  Measuring blood pressure accurately: new and persistent challenges.

Authors:  Daniel W Jones; Lawrence J Appel; Sheldon G Sheps; Edward J Roccella; Claude Lenfant
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003-02-26       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1986-02-08       Impact factor: 79.321

4.  Human blood pressure determination by sphygmomanometry.

Authors:  D Perloff; C Grim; J Flack; E D Frohlich; M Hill; M McDonald; B Z Morgenstern
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  1993-11       Impact factor: 29.690

5.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.

Authors:  J R Landis; G G Koch
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1977-03       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 6.  What will replace the mercury sphygmomanometer?

Authors:  Thomas G Pickering
Journal:  Blood Press Monit       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 1.444

7.  The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure: the JNC 7 report.

Authors:  Aram V Chobanian; George L Bakris; Henry R Black; William C Cushman; Lee A Green; Joseph L Izzo; Daniel W Jones; Barry J Materson; Suzanne Oparil; Jackson T Wright; Edward J Roccella
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003-05-14       Impact factor: 56.272

  7 in total
  18 in total

1.  Blood pressure monitoring technique impacts hypertension treatment.

Authors:  Gretchen M Ray; James J Nawarskas; Joe R Anderson
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2011-12-08       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  Is it time for a blood pressure measurement "bundle"?

Authors:  Craig A Umscheid; Raymond R Townsend
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  Association between adherence, treatment satisfaction and illness perception in hypertensive patients.

Authors:  S Saarti; A Hajj; L Karam; H Jabbour; A Sarkis; N El Osta; L Rabbaa Khabbaz
Journal:  J Hum Hypertens       Date:  2015-08-27       Impact factor: 3.012

4.  Blood pressure and mortality in U.S. veterans with chronic kidney disease: a cohort study.

Authors:  Csaba P Kovesdy; Anthony J Bleyer; Miklos Z Molnar; Jennie Z Ma; John J Sim; William C Cushman; L Darryl Quarles; Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2013-08-20       Impact factor: 25.391

5.  Nurse-led behavioral management of diabetes and hypertension in community practices: a randomized trial.

Authors:  David Edelman; Rowena J Dolor; Cynthia J Coffman; Katherine C Pereira; Bradi B Granger; Jennifer H Lindquist; Alice M Neary; Amy J Harris; Hayden B Bosworth
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2015-01-08       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  Open-label randomized trial of titrated disease management for patients with hypertension: Study design and baseline sample characteristics.

Authors:  George L Jackson; Morris Weinberger; Miriam A Kirshner; Karen M Stechuchak; Stephanie D Melnyk; Hayden B Bosworth; Cynthia J Coffman; Brian Neelon; Courtney Van Houtven; Pamela W Gentry; Isis J Morris; Cynthia M Rose; Jennifer P Taylor; Carrie L May; Byungjoo Han; Christi Wainwright; Aviel Alkon; Lesa Powell; David Edelman
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2016-07-12       Impact factor: 2.226

7.  Bridging Income Generation with Group Integrated Care for cardiovascular risk reduction: Rationale and design of the BIGPIC study.

Authors:  Rajesh Vedanthan; Jemima H Kamano; Hana Lee; Benjamin Andama; Gerald S Bloomfield; Allison K DeLong; David Edelman; Eric A Finkelstein; Joseph W Hogan; Carol R Horowitz; Simon Manyara; Diana Menya; Violet Naanyu; Sonak D Pastakia; Thomas W Valente; Cleophas C Wanyonyi; Valentin Fuster
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2017-03-23       Impact factor: 4.749

8.  Tailored Case Management for Diabetes and Hypertension (TEACH-DM) in a community population: study design and baseline sample characteristics.

Authors:  Matthew J Crowley; Hayden B Bosworth; Cynthia J Coffman; Jennifer H Lindquist; Alice M Neary; Amy C Harris; Santanu K Datta; Bradi B Granger; Katherine Pereira; Rowena J Dolor; David Edelman
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2013-08-02       Impact factor: 2.226

9.  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

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.