Evaluation of a community-based automated blood pressure measuring device

Automated devices are widely available in the community for people to measure their blood pressure. We assessed the accuracy and reproducibility of a brand of community-based automated device against the standard mercury sphygmomanometer. Same-arm pairs of blood pressure readings were obtained with...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Canadian Medical Association journal 2002-04, Vol.166 (9), p.1145-1148
Hauptverfasser: Lewis, Jacqueline E, Boyle, Eleanor, Magharious, Lucy, Myers, Martin G
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1148
container_issue 9
container_start_page 1145
container_title Canadian Medical Association journal
container_volume 166
creator Lewis, Jacqueline E
Boyle, Eleanor
Magharious, Lucy
Myers, Martin G
description Automated devices are widely available in the community for people to measure their blood pressure. We assessed the accuracy and reproducibility of a brand of community-based automated device against the standard mercury sphygmomanometer. Same-arm pairs of blood pressure readings were obtained with the Vita-Stat 90550 automated device, a sphygmomanometer and the Omron HEM-705CP automated device in random order on volunteers in 3 community pharmacies using a modified protocol for evaluating blood pressure devices. Comparison of readings between the Omron device and the sphygmomanometer served as a positive control of how well a laboratory-validated automated device could perform in the community. Both the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI) and British Hypertension Society (BHS) criteria were used to assess the accuracy and reproducibility of readings. The mean blood pressure reading and standard error (SE) of the mean for the 108 volunteers (66 women and 42 men) was 133/77 (SE 2/1) mm Hg with the Vita-Stat device, 131/77 (SE 2/1) mm Hg with the Omron device and 129/76 (SE 2/1) mm Hg with the sphygmomanometer. The mean difference in readings was 4.4/1.0 (standard deviation [SD] 9.4/6.2) mm Hg between the Vita-Stat device and the sphygmomanometer and 1.6/0.6 (SD 9.3/6.4) mm Hg between the Omron device and the sphygmomanometer. Neither automated device met the AAMI accuracy criteria for the systolic readings. The BHS grades were C/A (systolic unacceptable/diastolic acceptable) for each automated device. According to the BHS analytical criterion, all devices achieved acceptable reproducibility grades. Neither automated device met the AAMI or BHS criteria for accuracy while in use in the community, and neither performed as well in the community as in the laboratory.
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_102353</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>120590140</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-h320t-8a8b638e60af4da7924618a551c4b971dbfd3f429214a6af23e228783ffe74413</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkE1PwzAMhiMEYmPwF1DFAU6V8tU0PXBA04BJk7jAOXLbdMvUNCNpV-3fE2kDASdbfh_br32GpoRLmVJGi3M0xRjLlHNcTNBVCFuMYx3zSzQhNEqUiylaLvbQDtAb1yWuSSCpnLVDZ_pDWkLQdQJD7yz0MStb5-pk53UIg9eJ1RCj6dZJrfem0tfoooE26JtTnKGP58X7_DVdvb0s50-rdBOX96kEWQomtcDQ8BryItogErKMVLwsclKXTc0aTgtKOAhoKNOUylyyptE554TN0ONx7m4ora4r3fUeWrXzxoI_KAdG_VU6s1Frt1cknp-x2H9_6vfuc9ChV9aESrctdNoNQeVE5FQQHMG7f-DWDb6Lt6n4RUkJETJCt7_d_Nj4_nAEHo7Axqw3o_FaBQttG3GixnEkQqhCEcIz9gWXnIaX</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>204821168</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Evaluation of a community-based automated blood pressure measuring device</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Lewis, Jacqueline E ; Boyle, Eleanor ; Magharious, Lucy ; Myers, Martin G</creator><creatorcontrib>Lewis, Jacqueline E ; Boyle, Eleanor ; Magharious, Lucy ; Myers, Martin G</creatorcontrib><description>Automated devices are widely available in the community for people to measure their blood pressure. We assessed the accuracy and reproducibility of a brand of community-based automated device against the standard mercury sphygmomanometer. Same-arm pairs of blood pressure readings were obtained with the Vita-Stat 90550 automated device, a sphygmomanometer and the Omron HEM-705CP automated device in random order on volunteers in 3 community pharmacies using a modified protocol for evaluating blood pressure devices. Comparison of readings between the Omron device and the sphygmomanometer served as a positive control of how well a laboratory-validated automated device could perform in the community. Both the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI) and British Hypertension Society (BHS) criteria were used to assess the accuracy and reproducibility of readings. The mean blood pressure reading and standard error (SE) of the mean for the 108 volunteers (66 women and 42 men) was 133/77 (SE 2/1) mm Hg with the Vita-Stat device, 131/77 (SE 2/1) mm Hg with the Omron device and 129/76 (SE 2/1) mm Hg with the sphygmomanometer. The mean difference in readings was 4.4/1.0 (standard deviation [SD] 9.4/6.2) mm Hg between the Vita-Stat device and the sphygmomanometer and 1.6/0.6 (SD 9.3/6.4) mm Hg between the Omron device and the sphygmomanometer. Neither automated device met the AAMI accuracy criteria for the systolic readings. The BHS grades were C/A (systolic unacceptable/diastolic acceptable) for each automated device. According to the BHS analytical criterion, all devices achieved acceptable reproducibility grades. Neither automated device met the AAMI or BHS criteria for accuracy while in use in the community, and neither performed as well in the community as in the laboratory.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0008-4409</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 0820-3946</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1488-2329</identifier><identifier>PMID: 12000246</identifier><identifier>CODEN: CMAJAX</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Canada: Can Med Assoc</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Automation ; Blood pressure ; Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory - instrumentation ; Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory - standards ; Evaluation ; Female ; Humans ; Hypertension - diagnosis ; Male ; Medical instruments &amp; apparatus ; Middle Aged ; Reproducibility of Results ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Testing</subject><ispartof>Canadian Medical Association journal, 2002-04, Vol.166 (9), p.1145-1148</ispartof><rights>Copyright Canadian Medical Association Apr 30, 2002</rights><rights>2002 Canadian Medical Association or its licensors</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC102353/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC102353/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12000246$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lewis, Jacqueline E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boyle, Eleanor</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Magharious, Lucy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Myers, Martin G</creatorcontrib><title>Evaluation of a community-based automated blood pressure measuring device</title><title>Canadian Medical Association journal</title><addtitle>CMAJ</addtitle><description>Automated devices are widely available in the community for people to measure their blood pressure. We assessed the accuracy and reproducibility of a brand of community-based automated device against the standard mercury sphygmomanometer. Same-arm pairs of blood pressure readings were obtained with the Vita-Stat 90550 automated device, a sphygmomanometer and the Omron HEM-705CP automated device in random order on volunteers in 3 community pharmacies using a modified protocol for evaluating blood pressure devices. Comparison of readings between the Omron device and the sphygmomanometer served as a positive control of how well a laboratory-validated automated device could perform in the community. Both the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI) and British Hypertension Society (BHS) criteria were used to assess the accuracy and reproducibility of readings. The mean blood pressure reading and standard error (SE) of the mean for the 108 volunteers (66 women and 42 men) was 133/77 (SE 2/1) mm Hg with the Vita-Stat device, 131/77 (SE 2/1) mm Hg with the Omron device and 129/76 (SE 2/1) mm Hg with the sphygmomanometer. The mean difference in readings was 4.4/1.0 (standard deviation [SD] 9.4/6.2) mm Hg between the Vita-Stat device and the sphygmomanometer and 1.6/0.6 (SD 9.3/6.4) mm Hg between the Omron device and the sphygmomanometer. Neither automated device met the AAMI accuracy criteria for the systolic readings. The BHS grades were C/A (systolic unacceptable/diastolic acceptable) for each automated device. According to the BHS analytical criterion, all devices achieved acceptable reproducibility grades. Neither automated device met the AAMI or BHS criteria for accuracy while in use in the community, and neither performed as well in the community as in the laboratory.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Automation</subject><subject>Blood pressure</subject><subject>Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory - instrumentation</subject><subject>Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory - standards</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Hypertension - diagnosis</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical instruments &amp; apparatus</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Testing</subject><issn>0008-4409</issn><issn>0820-3946</issn><issn>1488-2329</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2002</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkE1PwzAMhiMEYmPwF1DFAU6V8tU0PXBA04BJk7jAOXLbdMvUNCNpV-3fE2kDASdbfh_br32GpoRLmVJGi3M0xRjLlHNcTNBVCFuMYx3zSzQhNEqUiylaLvbQDtAb1yWuSSCpnLVDZ_pDWkLQdQJD7yz0MStb5-pk53UIg9eJ1RCj6dZJrfem0tfoooE26JtTnKGP58X7_DVdvb0s50-rdBOX96kEWQomtcDQ8BryItogErKMVLwsclKXTc0aTgtKOAhoKNOUylyyptE554TN0ONx7m4ora4r3fUeWrXzxoI_KAdG_VU6s1Frt1cknp-x2H9_6vfuc9ChV9aESrctdNoNQeVE5FQQHMG7f-DWDb6Lt6n4RUkJETJCt7_d_Nj4_nAEHo7Axqw3o_FaBQttG3GixnEkQqhCEcIz9gWXnIaX</recordid><startdate>20020430</startdate><enddate>20020430</enddate><creator>Lewis, Jacqueline E</creator><creator>Boyle, Eleanor</creator><creator>Magharious, Lucy</creator><creator>Myers, Martin G</creator><general>Can Med Assoc</general><general>CMA Impact, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>4U-</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FQ</scope><scope>8FV</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AN0</scope><scope>ASE</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FPQ</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K6X</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M3G</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20020430</creationdate><title>Evaluation of a community-based automated blood pressure measuring device</title><author>Lewis, Jacqueline E ; Boyle, Eleanor ; Magharious, Lucy ; Myers, Martin G</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-h320t-8a8b638e60af4da7924618a551c4b971dbfd3f429214a6af23e228783ffe74413</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2002</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Automation</topic><topic>Blood pressure</topic><topic>Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory - instrumentation</topic><topic>Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory - standards</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Hypertension - diagnosis</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical instruments &amp; apparatus</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Testing</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lewis, Jacqueline E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boyle, Eleanor</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Magharious, Lucy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Myers, Martin G</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>University Readers</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Canadian Business &amp; Current Affairs Database</collection><collection>Canadian Business &amp; Current Affairs Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>British Nursing Database</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>British Nursing Index (BNI) (1985 to Present)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>CBCA Reference &amp; Current Events</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Canadian Medical Association journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lewis, Jacqueline E</au><au>Boyle, Eleanor</au><au>Magharious, Lucy</au><au>Myers, Martin G</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Evaluation of a community-based automated blood pressure measuring device</atitle><jtitle>Canadian Medical Association journal</jtitle><addtitle>CMAJ</addtitle><date>2002-04-30</date><risdate>2002</risdate><volume>166</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>1145</spage><epage>1148</epage><pages>1145-1148</pages><issn>0008-4409</issn><issn>0820-3946</issn><eissn>1488-2329</eissn><coden>CMAJAX</coden><abstract>Automated devices are widely available in the community for people to measure their blood pressure. We assessed the accuracy and reproducibility of a brand of community-based automated device against the standard mercury sphygmomanometer. Same-arm pairs of blood pressure readings were obtained with the Vita-Stat 90550 automated device, a sphygmomanometer and the Omron HEM-705CP automated device in random order on volunteers in 3 community pharmacies using a modified protocol for evaluating blood pressure devices. Comparison of readings between the Omron device and the sphygmomanometer served as a positive control of how well a laboratory-validated automated device could perform in the community. Both the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI) and British Hypertension Society (BHS) criteria were used to assess the accuracy and reproducibility of readings. The mean blood pressure reading and standard error (SE) of the mean for the 108 volunteers (66 women and 42 men) was 133/77 (SE 2/1) mm Hg with the Vita-Stat device, 131/77 (SE 2/1) mm Hg with the Omron device and 129/76 (SE 2/1) mm Hg with the sphygmomanometer. The mean difference in readings was 4.4/1.0 (standard deviation [SD] 9.4/6.2) mm Hg between the Vita-Stat device and the sphygmomanometer and 1.6/0.6 (SD 9.3/6.4) mm Hg between the Omron device and the sphygmomanometer. Neither automated device met the AAMI accuracy criteria for the systolic readings. The BHS grades were C/A (systolic unacceptable/diastolic acceptable) for each automated device. According to the BHS analytical criterion, all devices achieved acceptable reproducibility grades. Neither automated device met the AAMI or BHS criteria for accuracy while in use in the community, and neither performed as well in the community as in the laboratory.</abstract><cop>Canada</cop><pub>Can Med Assoc</pub><pmid>12000246</pmid><tpages>4</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0008-4409
ispartof Canadian Medical Association journal, 2002-04, Vol.166 (9), p.1145-1148
issn 0008-4409
0820-3946
1488-2329
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_102353
source MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Automation
Blood pressure
Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory - instrumentation
Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory - standards
Evaluation
Female
Humans
Hypertension - diagnosis
Male
Medical instruments & apparatus
Middle Aged
Reproducibility of Results
Sensitivity and Specificity
Testing
title Evaluation of a community-based automated blood pressure measuring device
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-27T19%3A17%3A05IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Evaluation%20of%20a%20community-based%20automated%20blood%20pressure%20measuring%20device&rft.jtitle=Canadian%20Medical%20Association%20journal&rft.au=Lewis,%20Jacqueline%20E&rft.date=2002-04-30&rft.volume=166&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=1145&rft.epage=1148&rft.pages=1145-1148&rft.issn=0008-4409&rft.eissn=1488-2329&rft.coden=CMAJAX&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E120590140%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=204821168&rft_id=info:pmid/12000246&rfr_iscdi=true