| Literature DB >> 27660735 |
Shival Srivastav1, Renuka Sharma1, Raj Kapoor1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Blood pressure estimation is a key skill for medical practitioners. It is routinely taught to undergraduate medical students using an aneroid sphygmomanometer. However, the conceptual understanding in the practical remains limited. We conducted the following study to evaluate the efficacy of digital data acquisition systems as an adjunct to the sphygmomanometer to teach blood pressure.Entities:
Keywords: blood pressure; small group learning; sphygmomanometer
Year: 2016 PMID: 27660735 PMCID: PMC5025291 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.736
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cureus ISSN: 2168-8184
Figure 1Representative Record of Blood Pressure Measurement Using the PowerLab© System
This is a three channel recording done using PowerLab® system for estimation of blood pressure. Channel 1 shows pressure in Riva-Rocci cuff taken using pressure transducer. Channel 2 shows pulse waveform taken using pulse transducer from the index finger of ipsilateral arm. Channel 3 shows sounds picked up using a cardio microphone.
The phases of rest, inflation of cuff and deflation of cuff are marked. During rest, the cuff pressure is close to zero, finger pulse is normal in amplitude, and cardio microphone channel shows some noise due to mechanical pulsations picked up by the probe. As the cuff is gradually inflated, the cuff pressure rises and stray signals are picked up by the sensitive microphone due to turbulent flow. When cuff pressure surpasses systolic pressure, finger pulse completely disappears. When the cuff is slowly deflated, finger pulse reappears and gradually rises in amplitude and the Korotkoff sounds can be clearly demarcated in Channel 3.
Comparison of Scores for Conceptual Questions and Theoretical Questions (n = 57)
*Data expressed as median (interquartile range)
| Question Type | Pre-Test Score* | Post-Test Score* | P value |
| Conceptual (Maximum marks = 10) | 7 (6-8) | 10 (9-10) | < 0.0001 |
| Theoretical (Maximum marks = 5) | 3 (1.5-4) | 4 (4-4.5) | < 0.0001 |
Figure 2Comparison of Pre- and Post-test Scores for Conceptual Questions (n = 57)
Mann-Whitney U test, p < 0.0001
Figure 3Comparison of Pre- and Post-test Scores for Theoretical Questions (n = 57)
Mann-Whitney U test, p < 0.0001