PURPOSE: To validate the Dinamap ProCare 200 blood pressure (BP) monitor against a mercury sphygmomanometer in children 7 to 18 years old in accordance with the 2010 International Protocol of European Society of Hypertension (ESH-IP2) and the British Hypertension Society (BHS) protocol. METHODS: Forty-five children were recruited for the study. A validation procedure was performed following the protocol based on the ESH-IP2 and BHS protocols for children and adolescents. Each subject underwent 7 sequential BP measurements alternatively with a mercury sphygmomanometer and the test device by trained nurses. The results were analyzed according to the validation criteria of ESH-IP2. RESULTS: The mean (±SD) difference in the absolute BP values between test device and mercury sphygmomanometer readings was 1.85±1.65 mmHg for systolic BP (SBP) and 4.41±3.53 mmHg for diastolic BP (DBP). These results fulfilled the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation criterion of a mean±SD below 5±8 mmHg for both SBP and DBP. The percentages of test device-observer mercury sphygmomanometer BP differences within 5, 10, and 15 mmHg were 96%, 100%, and 100% for SBP, and 69%, 92%, and 100% for DBP, respectively, in the part 1 analysis; both SBP and DBP passed the part 1 criteria. In the part 2 analysis, SBP passed the criteria but DBP failed. CONCLUSION: Although the Dinamap ProCare 200 BP monitor failed an adapted ESH-IP2, SBP passed. When comparing BP readings measured by oscillometers and mercury sphygmomanometers, one has to consider the differences between them, particularly in DBP, because DBP can be underestimated.
PURPOSE: To validate the Dinamap ProCare 200 blood pressure (BP) monitor against a mercury sphygmomanometer in children 7 to 18 years old in accordance with the 2010 International Protocol of European Society of Hypertension (ESH-IP2) and the British Hypertension Society (BHS) protocol. METHODS: Forty-five children were recruited for the study. A validation procedure was performed following the protocol based on the ESH-IP2 and BHS protocols for children and adolescents. Each subject underwent 7 sequential BP measurements alternatively with a mercury sphygmomanometer and the test device by trained nurses. The results were analyzed according to the validation criteria of ESH-IP2. RESULTS: The mean (±SD) difference in the absolute BP values between test device and mercury sphygmomanometer readings was 1.85±1.65 mmHg for systolic BP (SBP) and 4.41±3.53 mmHg for diastolic BP (DBP). These results fulfilled the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation criterion of a mean±SD below 5±8 mmHg for both SBP and DBP. The percentages of test device-observer mercury sphygmomanometer BP differences within 5, 10, and 15 mmHg were 96%, 100%, and 100% for SBP, and 69%, 92%, and 100% for DBP, respectively, in the part 1 analysis; both SBP and DBP passed the part 1 criteria. In the part 2 analysis, SBP passed the criteria but DBP failed. CONCLUSION: Although the Dinamap ProCare 200 BP monitor failed an adapted ESH-IP2, SBP passed. When comparing BP readings measured by oscillometers and mercury sphygmomanometers, one has to consider the differences between them, particularly in DBP, because DBP can be underestimated.
Entities:
Keywords:
Blood pressure; Dinamap; International protocol; Oscillometric device; Validation studies
Authors: Eoin O'Brien; Thomas Pickering; Roland Asmar; Martin Myers; Gianfranco Parati; Jan Staessen; Thomas Mengden; Yutaka Imai; Bernard Waeber; Paolo Palatini; William Gerin Journal: Blood Press Monit Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 1.444
Authors: E O'Brien; J Petrie; W Littler; M de Swiet; P L Padfield; D G Altman; M Bland; A Coats; N Atkins Journal: J Hypertens Date: 1993-06 Impact factor: 4.844
Authors: Min Zhao; Jose G Mill; Wei-Li Yan; Young Mi Hong; Paula Skidmore; Lee Stoner; Ana I Mora-Urda; Anuradha Khadilkar; Rafael de Oliveira Alvim; Hae Soon Kim; Pilar Montero López; Yi Zhang; Pouya Saeedi; Divanei Zaniqueli; Yuan Jiang; Polyana Romano Oliosa; Eliane Rodrigues de Faria; Kai Mu; Da-Yan Niu; Costan G Magnussen; Bo Xi Journal: J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) Date: 2019-08-07 Impact factor: 3.738
Authors: Wen Lun Yuan; Michael S Kramer; Navin Michael; Suresh A Sadananthan; Mya T Tint; Ling-Wei Chen; Wei Wei Pang; Sendhil S Velan; Keith M Godfrey; Yap-Seng Chong; Mary F F Chong; Jonathan T L Choo; Lieng Hsi Ling; Johan G Eriksson; Yung Seng Lee Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2021-05-18 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Sung Hye Kim; Youngmi Park; Young Hwan Song; Hyo Soon An; Jae Il Shin; Jin Hee Oh; Jung Won Lee; Seong Heon Kim; Hae Soon Kim; Hye Jung Shin; Hae Kyoung Lee; Yeong Bong Park; Hae Yong Lee; Nam Su Kim; Il Soo Ha; Soyeon Ahn; Woojoo Lee; Young Mi Hong Journal: Korean Circ J Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 3.243
Authors: Jane E Clark; Russell Pate; Rose Marie Rine; Jennifer Christy; Pamela Dalton; Diane L Damiano; Stephen Daniels; Jonathan M Holmes; Peter T Katzmarzyk; Susan Magasi; Ryan McCreery; Kerry McIver; Karl M Newell; Terence Sanger; David Sugden; Elsie Taveras; Steven Hirschfeld Journal: Front Pediatr Date: 2021-11-26 Impact factor: 3.418