OBJECTIVE: To compare the reliability of blood pressure (BP) readings obtained with an oscillometric device with those obtained by auscultation and assess for differences in BP status classification based on the 2 techniques. STUDY DESIGN: Resting BP was measured by auscultation and with an oscillometric device at the same encounter in 235 subjects enrolled in the Chronic Kidney Disease in Children study. Resting auscultatory BP values were averaged and compared with averaged oscillometric readings. BP agreement by the 2 methods was assessed using Bland-Altman plots, and BP status classification agreement was assessed by calculation of kappa statistics. RESULTS: Oscillometric BP readings were higher than auscultatory readings, with a median paired difference of 9 mm Hg for systolic BP (SBP) and 6 mm Hg for diastolic BP (DBP). Correlation for mean SBP was 0.624 and for mean DBP was 0.491. The bias for oscillometric BP measurement was 8.7 mm Hg for SBP (P < .01) and 5.7 mm Hg for DBP (P < .01). BP status classification agreement was 61% for SBP and 63% for DBP, with Kappa values of .31 for SBP and .20 for DBP. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with auscultation, the oscillometric device significantly overestimated both SBP and DBP, leading to frequent misclassification of BP status. Copyright Â
OBJECTIVE: To compare the reliability of blood pressure (BP) readings obtained with an oscillometric device with those obtained by auscultation and assess for differences in BP status classification based on the 2 techniques. STUDY DESIGN: Resting BP was measured by auscultation and with an oscillometric device at the same encounter in 235 subjects enrolled in the Chronic Kidney Disease in Children study. Resting auscultatory BP values were averaged and compared with averaged oscillometric readings. BP agreement by the 2 methods was assessed using Bland-Altman plots, and BP status classification agreement was assessed by calculation of kappa statistics. RESULTS: Oscillometric BP readings were higher than auscultatory readings, with a median paired difference of 9 mm Hg for systolic BP (SBP) and 6 mm Hg for diastolic BP (DBP). Correlation for mean SBP was 0.624 and for mean DBP was 0.491. The bias for oscillometric BP measurement was 8.7 mm Hg for SBP (P < .01) and 5.7 mm Hg for DBP (P < .01). BP status classification agreement was 61% for SBP and 63% for DBP, with Kappa values of .31 for SBP and .20 for DBP. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with auscultation, the oscillometric device significantly overestimated both SBP and DBP, leading to frequent misclassification of BP status. Copyright Â
Authors: Thomas G Pickering; John E Hall; Lawrence J Appel; Bonita E Falkner; John Graves; Martha N Hill; Daniel W Jones; Theodore Kurtz; Sheldon G Sheps; Edward J Roccella Journal: Circulation Date: 2005-02-08 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Elke Wühl; Antonella Trivelli; Stefano Picca; Mieczyslaw Litwin; Amira Peco-Antic; Aleksandra Zurowska; Sara Testa; Augustina Jankauskiene; Sevinc Emre; Alberto Caldas-Afonso; Ali Anarat; Patrick Niaudet; Sevgi Mir; Aysin Bakkaloglu; Barbara Enke; Giovanni Montini; Ann-Margret Wingen; Peter Sallay; Nikola Jeck; Ulla Berg; Salim Caliskan; Simone Wygoda; Katharina Hohbach-Hohenfellner; Jiri Dusek; Tomasz Urasinski; Klaus Arbeiter; Thomas Neuhaus; Jutta Gellermann; Dorota Drozdz; Michel Fischbach; Kristina Möller; Marianne Wigger; Licia Peruzzi; Otto Mehls; Franz Schaefer Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-10-22 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Susan L Furth; Stephen R Cole; Marva Moxey-Mims; Frederick Kaskel; Robert Mak; George Schwartz; Craig Wong; Alvaro Muñoz; Bradley A Warady Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2006-07-19 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Joseph T Flynn; Mark Mitsnefes; Christopher Pierce; Steven R Cole; Rulan S Parekh; Susan L Furth; Bradley A Warady Journal: Hypertension Date: 2008-08-25 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Juan C Kupferman; Donald L Batisky; Joshua Samuels; Heather R Adams; Stephen R Hooper; Hongyue Wang; Marc B Lande Journal: Pediatr Nephrol Date: 2018-06-12 Impact factor: 3.714
Authors: Elaine M Urbina; Philip R Khoury; Connie E McCoy; Stephen R Daniels; Lawrence M Dolan; Thomas R Kimball Journal: Blood Press Monit Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 1.444
Authors: Wei Perng; Sheryl L Rifas-Shiman; Michael S Kramer; Line K Haugaard; Emily Oken; Matthew W Gillman; Mandy B Belfort Journal: Hypertension Date: 2015-12-07 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Marc B Lande; Juan C Kupferman; Stephen R Hooper; Steven G Pavlakis; Donald L Batisky; Heather R Adams Journal: Psychosom Med Date: 2014-01-26 Impact factor: 4.312