Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The errors of non-invasive blood pressure (NIBP) monitors can occur in both random errors and systematic errors depending on the condition in use, length of service time, brands, models, etc. Inaccurate readings of blood pressure values can lead to wrong diagnoses and improper treatment. Therefore, a regular check of the accuracy of NIBP devices is necessary. We evaluated the accuracy of NIBP monitors in the Queen Sirikit Heart Center of the Northeast Hospital in Thailand according to SMM02-1 procedures. The test comprises static, dynamic, and pulse rate calibration, respectively. We found that long-time service monitors over 10 years tended to fail the static test by up to 25 % compared with 0–10 years monitors, which failed the test by about 14%. However, it is insignificant by the service time as 80% of monitors in this failed group are the same model. For the model study, the XA2, XB2, and Y3 models still showed high precision in both static and dynamic pressure measurement. The study showed that 60% of NIBP monitors used in Queen Sirikit Heart Center are accurate following SMM02-1. The long service time of monitors should be determined when the monitor is over 10 years. Moreover, highly accurate models of the monitors and regular calibrations are requested.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Somjid et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: