Literature DB >> 18453792

Impact of terminal digit preference by family physicians and sphygmomanometer calibration errors on blood pressure value: implication for hypertension screening.

Theophile Niyonsenga1, Alain Vanasse, Josiane Courteau, Lyne Cloutier.   

Abstract

The accuracy of blood pressure (BP) measurement is important; systematic small errors can mislabel BP status in many persons. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of 2 types of measurement errors on the evaluation of BP in family medicine: errors associated with terminal digit preference and those associated with calibration errors of sphygmomanometers. Secondary data analyses from 2 different projects were used to derive empiric distributions of terminal digit and BP device errors. Taking into account both types of errors, the proportion of false positives (falsely high BP) and false negatives (falsely normal BP) varied between 0. 82% and 5.18% of the population of consulting family physicians. In the United States, false positives and false negatives in patients' BP evaluations might lead to overtreating or undertreating 1.15 million to 7.25 million patients. Results support the need for the development of systematic interventions for quality control of BP measurements and periodic retraining for health professionals.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18453792      PMCID: PMC8109888          DOI: 10.1111/j.1751-7176.2008.06620.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)        ISSN: 1524-6175            Impact factor:   3.738


  27 in total

Review 1.  ABC of hypertension: Blood pressure measurement. Part II-conventional sphygmomanometry: technique of auscultatory blood pressure measurement.

Authors:  G Beevers; G Y Lip; E O'Brien
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-04-28

2.  1999 World Health Organization-International Society of Hypertension Guidelines for the Management of Hypertension. Guidelines Subcommittee.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Hypertens       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 4.844

3.  Aneroid sphygmomanometers. An assessment of accuracy at a university hospital and clinics.

Authors:  R H Bailey; V L Knaus; J H Bauer
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1991-07

4.  How accurate are sphygmomanometers?

Authors:  D Mion; A M Pierin
Journal:  J Hum Hypertens       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 3.012

5.  Accuracy of prehospital sphygmomanometers.

Authors:  J S Jones; W Ramsey; T Hetrick
Journal:  J Emerg Med       Date:  1987       Impact factor: 1.484

Review 6.  A review of common errors in the indirect measurement of blood pressure. Sphygmomanometry.

Authors:  R H Bailey; J H Bauer
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1993-12-27

7.  Clinical assessment of blood pressure.

Authors:  D W McKay; N R Campbell; L S Parab; A Chockalingam; J G Fodor
Journal:  J Hum Hypertens       Date:  1990-12       Impact factor: 3.012

8.  Effects of systematic errors in blood pressure measurements on the diagnosis of hypertension.

Authors:  Martin J Turner; A Barry Baker; Peter C Kam
Journal:  Blood Press Monit       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 1.444

9.  Implementation of a province-wide computerized network in Quebec: the FAMUS Project.

Authors:  A Grant; E Delisle; S Dubois; T Niyonsenga; R Bernier
Journal:  MD Comput       Date:  1995 Jan-Feb

10.  Sphygmomanometers in hospital and family practice: problems and recommendations.

Authors:  M J Burke; H M Towers; K O'Malley; D J Fitzgerald; E T O'Brien
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1982-08-14
View more
  5 in total

1.  Evaluating measurement error in readings of blood pressure for adolescents and young adults.

Authors:  Shawn Bauldry; Kenneth A Bollen; Linda S Adair
Journal:  Blood Press       Date:  2014-12-30       Impact factor: 2.835

Review 2.  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

3.  Potential impact of systematic and random errors in blood pressure measurement on the prevalence of high office blood pressure in the United States.

Authors:  Swati Sakhuja; Byron C Jaeger; Oluwasegun P Akinyelure; Adam P Bress; Daichi Shimbo; Joseph E Schwartz; Shakia T Hardy; George Howard; Paul Drawz; Paul Muntner
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2022-02-09       Impact factor: 3.738

4.  Manual or automated sphygmomanometer? A historical cohort to quantify measurement bias in blood pressure recording.

Authors:  Arash A Nargesi; Zaniar Ghazizadeh; Mehrdad Larry; Afsaneh Morteza; Firuzeh Heidari; Firuzeh Asgarani; Alireza Esteghamati; Kazem Mohammad; Manouchehr Nakhjavani
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2014-09-08       Impact factor: 3.738

5.  A multi-level system quality improvement intervention to reduce racial disparities in hypertension care and control: study protocol.

Authors:  Lisa A Cooper; Jill A Marsteller; Gary J Noronha; Sarah J Flynn; Kathryn A Carson; Romsai T Boonyasai; Cheryl A Anderson; Hanan J Aboumatar; Debra L Roter; Katherine B Dietz; Edgar R Miller; Gregory P Prokopowicz; Arlene T Dalcin; Jeanne B Charleston; Michelle Simmons; Mary Margaret Huizinga
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2013-06-04       Impact factor: 7.327

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.