What question did this study set out to answer?

The aim was to validate three Omron blood pressure devices for accuracy against a standard sphygmomanometer.

December 2, 2014Blood Pressure Monitoring

Validation of three automatic devices for the self-measurement of blood pressure according to the European Society of Hypertension International Protocol revision 2010

Q: What is the clinical evidence from this study?

Study design: Observational. Population: blood pressure monitoring (n=99). Intervention: Omron HEM-7130, HEM-7320F, and HEM-7500F vs. standard mercury sphygmomanometer. Primary outcome: mean differences between the device and the mercury readings for systolic and diastolic BP.

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Key result

The Omron HEM-7130, HEM-7320F, and HEM-7500F automatic blood pressure devices passed all requirements of the ESH-IP 2010 revision for home measurement of BP in adults.

Why the study?

Do the Omron HEM-7130, HEM-7320F, and HEM-7500F automatic blood pressure devices accurately measure blood pressure compared to a standard mercury sphygmomanometer in adults?

Population

33 participants per experiment

Comparison

Omron HEM-7130, HEM-7320F, and HEM-7500F… vs Standard mercury sphygmomanometer

Design

Other

Authors

HTHakuo TakahashiKansai Medical University MYMasamichi YoshikaSetsunan University TYToyohiko YokoiMukogawa Women's University

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Supports home BP monitoring with these devices; extends validation data but leaves outcome effects open.

Key Points

The aim was to validate three Omron blood pressure devices for accuracy against a standard sphygmomanometer.
Three trained doctors compared device readings with mercury sphygmomanometer readings.
Included 33 participants with varying male and female ratios for each device testing.
Devices assessed were the Omron HEM-7130, HEM-7320F, and HEM-7500F.
HEM-7130 showed a mean difference of -1.8 mmHg (systolic) and -0.1 mmHg (diastolic).
HEM-7320F had -0.9 mmHg (systolic) and -1.9 mmHg (diastolic) differences.
HEM-7500F demonstrated -1.0 mmHg (systolic) and -1.1 mmHg (diastolic) differences. All devices met ESH-IP requirements.

Study Design

Type

Observational (n=99)

Structured PICO

Do the Omron HEM-7130, HEM-7320F, and HEM-7500F automatic blood pressure devices accurately measure blood pressure compared to a standard mercury sphygmomanometer in adults?

Population

33 participants per experiment (HEM-7130: 20 men, 13 women, mean age 49±15 years; HEM-7320F: 18 men, 15 women, mean age 50±11 years; HEM-7500F: 21 men, 12 women, mean age 50±11 years)

Intervention

Omron HEM-7130, HEM-7320F, and HEM-7500F automatic blood pressure devices for monitoring upper arm blood pressure

Comparator

Standard mercury sphygmomanometer

Outcome

Mean differences between the device and the mercury readings for systolic and diastolic blood pressuresurrogate

The Omron HEM-7130, HEM-7320F, and HEM-7500F automatic blood pressure devices meet the ESH-IP 2010 validation requirements and are recommended for home blood pressure monitoring.

Cite This Study

Takahashi et al. (2014) conducted an observational in blood pressure monitoring (n=99). Omron HEM-7130, HEM-7320F, and HEM-7500F vs. standard mercury sphygmomanometer was evaluated on mean differences between the device and the mercury readings for systolic and diastolic BP. The Omron HEM-7130, HEM-7320F, and HEM-7500F automatic blood pressure devices passed all requirements of the ESH-IP 2010 revision for home measurement of BP in adults.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a10ef8969716c70d0488fce https://doi.org/10.1097/mbp.0000000000000096

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Validation of three automatic devices for the self-measurement of blood pressure according to the European Society of Hypertension International Protocol revision 2010

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Key Points

Study Design

Structured PICO

Cite This Study

Validation of three automatic devices for the self-measurement of blood pressure according to the European Society of Hypertension International Protocol revision 2010

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Key Points

Study Design

Structured PICO

Cite This Study

Also Consider

Also Consider