While automated blood pressure devices simplify measurement and reduce observer bias, careful device selection is required due to persistent accuracy limitations in specific clinical populations.
Supports caution with automated devices in diabetes, arrhythmia, or preeclampsia; leaves open validation needs in these subgroups.
Blood pressure measurement is an essential, poorly performed skill, traditionally undertaken through auscultation and use of a mercury sphygmomanometer. However, its exclusivity to the clinical environment has changed substantially over the last 20 years with the introduction of automated blood pressure devices. This simplified self-measurement method has enabled increased patient involvement and surveillance, while also eliminating the observer error, measurement bias and white-coat effect associated with auscultatory measurement in the clinical setting. Rapid advances in technology have decreased the discrepancy between automated and auscultatory readings, evidenced by the increased number of devices to pass recognized validation standards. However, the limitation of automated device accuracy is still evident in certain patient groups, such as those with diabetes, an arrhythmia or preeclampsia. Therefore, careful consideration is warranted when selecting a noninvasive blood pressure measurement device to ensure optimum accuracy and reliability of readings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Greeff et al. (2008) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: