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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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