What is the clinical evidence from this study?

Study design: Observational. Intervention: A&D UA-778 blood pressure monitor vs. Mercury sphygmomanometer. Primary outcome: Difference between UA-778 and mercury sphygmomanometer readings (MD 4.9 +/- 6.3 mmHg (systolic) and 2.4 +/- 5.9 mmHg (diastolic)).

What question did this study set out to answer?

The aim is to validate the UA-778 blood pressure monitor for measuring blood pressure in children aged 4-15 according to specific protocols.

September 22, 2009Blood Pressure Monitoring

Validation of A&D UA-778 blood pressure monitor in children

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Key result

The A&D UA-778 blood pressure monitor showed a mean difference of 4.9 ± 6.3 mmHg for systolic and 2.4 ± 5.9 mmHg for diastolic pressure compared to a mercury sphygmomanometer, achieving a B/A grade.

Why the study?

Does the oscillometric blood pressure monitor UA-778 accurately measure blood pressure in children aged 4-15 years compared to a mercury sphygmomanometer?

Population

85 children aged 4-15 years (38 boys, 47 girls)

Comparison

Blood pressure measurement using the… vs Blood pressure measurement using a mercury…

Design

Cross-sectional

Authors

МНМ.В. НароганAcademy of Medical Sciences MNMarina I. NaroganYandex (Russia)ESE. V. SyutkinaUniversity of Minnesota

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

May support UA-778 use in children; leaves open broader device validation across populations.

Key Points

The aim is to validate the UA-778 blood pressure monitor for measuring blood pressure in children aged 4-15 according to specific protocols.
85 children aged 4-15 years participated, with two trained observers taking readings.
Nine sequential readings were captured using both a mercury sphygmomanometer and the UA-778 device.
The British Hypertension Society protocol and American Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation criteria were applied to analyze the readings.
The UA-778 showed a difference of 4.9 +/- 6.3 mmHg for systolic pressure and 2.4 +/- 5.9 mmHg for diastolic pressure compared to the mercury readings.
50%, 83%, and 95% of systolic blood pressure differences were within 5, 10, and 15 mmHg, respectively.
70%, 90%, and 96% of diastolic blood pressure differences were within 5, 10, and 15 mmHg, achieving B/A grade accuracy.

Study Design

Type

Observational (n=85)

Structured PICO

Does the oscillometric blood pressure monitor UA-778 accurately measure blood pressure in children aged 4-15 years compared to a mercury sphygmomanometer?

Population

85 children aged 4-15 years evaluated for blood pressure monitor validation.

Exposure

Blood pressure measurement using the oscillometric blood pressure monitor UA-778

Comparator

Blood pressure measurement using a mercury sphygmomanometer

Outcome

Difference in blood pressure readings between the test device and mercury sphygmomanometer according to the British Hypertension Society protocol and AAMI criterionsurrogate

Main Result

Mean Difference: 4.9

The UA-778 oscillometric blood pressure monitor is an accurate device for measuring blood pressure in children and adolescents.

Cite This Study

Нароган et al. (2009) reported an observational. A&D UA-778 blood pressure monitor vs. Mercury sphygmomanometer was evaluated on Difference between UA-778 and mercury sphygmomanometer readings (MD 4.9 +/- 6.3 mmHg (systolic) and 2.4 +/- 5.9 mmHg (diastolic)). The A&D UA-778 blood pressure monitor showed a mean difference of 4.9 ± 6.3 mmHg for systolic and 2.4 ± 5.9 mmHg for diastolic pressure compared to a mercury sphygmomanometer, achieving a B/A grade.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a5ac4909e3e30a63dac71ca https://doi.org/10.1097/mbp.0b013e328330eeb2

Topics

Hypertension management

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Validation of A&D UA-778 blood pressure monitor in children

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Key Points

Study Design

Structured PICO

Main Result

Cite This Study

Topics

Validation of A&D UA-778 blood pressure monitor in children

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Key Points

Study Design

Structured PICO

Main Result

Cite This Study

Also Consider

Topics

Also Consider