Literature DB >> 7623370

Does the Hawksley random zero sphygmomanometer underestimate blood pressure, and by how much?

A Mackie1, P Whincup, M McKinnon.   

Abstract

The study objective was to compare blood pressure (BP) measurement by the Hawksley random-zero sphygmomanometer and the standard mercury sphygmomanometer. Comparison of simultaneous 'blind' BP measurements were made using the Hawksley random-zero sphygmomanometer and the standard mercury sphygmomanometer linked by a Y-connector to a single cuff, in the general practice and office environments. Sixty five healthy volunteers and general practice patients, aged between 20 and 50 years (SBP range 82-184 mm Hg, DBP range 38-112 mm Hg), were studied. Each had three blood pressure measurements taken. Mean BPs recorded by the Hawksley random-zero sphygmomanometer were lower than those recorded by the standard mercury sphygmomanometer. The Hawksley random-zero sphygmomanometer underestimated SBP by 1.3 mm Hg (95% CI 0.9-1.8 mm Hg) and DBP by 1.7 mm Hg (95% CI 1.1-2.3 mm Hg). These differences between instruments were independent of BP level both for systolic and diastolic measurements. An overview including this study and six other published reports describing nine studies examining the performance of the Hawksley random-zero sphygmomanometer suggested a similar degree of underestimation for SBP (mean difference 1.35 mm Hg, 95% CI 1.24-1.46 mm Hg). Underestimation of DBP appeared greater (mean difference 2.54 mm Hg, 95% CI 2.43-2.65 mm Hg) but was reduced when two outlying studies were removed from analysis (mean 1.97, 95% CI 1.85-2.09 mm Hg). We conclude that the Hawksley random-zero sphygmomanometer underestimates systolic and diastolic pressure, when compared with the standard mercury sphygmomanometer. However, the degree of underestimation is small and appears consistent across a wide range of blood pressure levels.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7623370

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Hum Hypertens        ISSN: 0950-9240            Impact factor:   3.012


  5 in total

1.  [Prevalence of arterial hypertension in the population of Western Germany: Heinz Nixdorf Recall Study].

Authors:  M Horacek; S Möhlenkamp; A A Mahabadi; S Churzidse; S Moebus; K-H Jöckel; R Erbel
Journal:  Herz       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 1.443

2.  Agreement between the Takeda UA-731 automatic blood pressure measuring device and the manual mercury sphygmomanometer: an assessment under field conditions in Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Authors:  C Cartwright; N Unwin; P Stephenson
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 3.710

3.  Agreement of blood pressure measurements between random-zero and standard mercury sphygmomanometers.

Authors:  Wenjie Yang; Dongfeng Gu; Jing Chen; Cashell E Jaquish; D C Rao; Xigui Wu; James E Hixson; Xiufang Duan; Tanika N Kelly; L Lee Hamm; Paul K Whelton; Jiang He
Journal:  Am J Med Sci       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 2.378

4.  Evaluating different criteria for defining a complete ambulatory blood pressure monitoring recording: data from the Jackson Heart Study.

Authors:  Samantha G Bromfield; John N Booth; Matthew S Loop; Joseph E Schwartz; Samantha R Seals; Stephen J Thomas; Yuan-I Min; Gbenga Ogedegbe; Daichi Shimbo; Paul Muntner
Journal:  Blood Press Monit       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 1.444

5.  Ethnic Differences in Associations Between Blood Pressure and Stroke in South Asian and European Men.

Authors:  Sophie V Eastwood; Therese Tillin; Nish Chaturvedi; Alun D Hughes
Journal:  Hypertension       Date:  2015-07-13       Impact factor: 10.190

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.