Literature DB >> 23764377

Comparison between an automated device and a manual mercury sphygmomanometer in an epidemiological survey of hypertension prevalence.

Young-Hyo Lim1, Sung Yong Choi, Kyung Won Oh, Yuna Kim, Eun Sil Cho, Bo Youl Choi, Yu-Mi Kim, Jinho Shin.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Automated devices (AD) for measuring blood pressure (BP) are gradually replacing mercury sphygmomanometers (MM) in clinical settings. However, the use of ADs in epidemiological surveys has not been established. We investigated the factors associated with measurement differences when using an MM and an AD.
METHODS: Two trained observers took three BP measurements in 454 subjects as part of an epidemiological survey, alternately using an MM and an AD. BP measurement difference was defined as BPMM - BPAD. Alarm reactions (ARs) were calculated by subtracting the third systolic BP (SBP) measurement from the first SBP.
RESULTS: The mean age of subjects was 50.7±15.4 years (n = 454). The mean BPs using the MM and the AD were 119.8±13.9 vs. 119.5±13.6mm Hg in males and 115.0±16.8 vs. 111.6±15.7mm Hg in females for SBP and 77.7±10.4 vs. 74.7±10.4mm Hg in males and 73.2±9.3 vs. 69.9±10.3mm Hg in females for diastolic BP (DBP). Age, gender, arm circumference, and AR were the factors related to the difference. The concordance correlation coefficients for SBP and DBP were 0.8914 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8727-0.9102) and 0.8207 (95% CI, 0.7920-0.8494). The kappa values for the diagnosis of hypertension and Joint National Committee 7 BP classification were 0.6538 (0.5436-0.7641) and 0.5703 (0.5055-0.6351), respectively. The diagnostic sensitivity for hypertension was 59.0%.
CONCLUSIONS: Age, gender, arm circumference, and AR were the factors related to the differences. Despite small differences in the mean values, the agreement and reliability were not good enough to recommend the A&D UA-767PC for adoption in epidemiological surveys of hypertension prevalence.

Entities:  

Keywords:  blood pressure; diagnostic errors; epidemiological factors; hypertension; oscillometry.

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23764377     DOI: 10.1093/ajh/hpt100

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Hypertens        ISSN: 0895-7061            Impact factor:   2.689


  3 in total

1.  Prevalence of Masked Hypertension: a Population-Based Survey in a Large City by Using 24-Hour Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring.

Authors:  Moo-Yong Rhee; Sun-Woong Kim; Eun-Hee Choi; Ji-Hyun Kim; Deuk-Young Nah; Sung-Joon Shin; Namyi Gu
Journal:  Korean Circ J       Date:  2016-09-28       Impact factor: 3.243

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.  Comparison of the accuracy and errors of blood pressure measured by 2 types of non-mercury sphygmomanometers in an epidemiological survey.

Authors:  SeongIl Choi; Yu-Mi Kim; Jinho Shin; Young-Hyo Lim; Sung-Yong Choi; Bo-Youl Choi; Kyung-Won Oh; Hyung-Min Lee; Kyung-Ji Woo
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 1.889

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.