Why the study?
Does the Copal UA-231 automatic sphygmomanometer provide accurate blood pressure measurements compared to a Hawksley random zero instrument in volunteers?
Does the Copal UA-231 automatic sphygmomanometer provide accurate blood pressure measurements compared to a Hawksley random zero instrument in volunteers?
The Copal UA-231 automatic sphygmomanometer is suitable for survey and experimental use if used carefully, despite a slight overestimation of systolic pressure.
Potential systolic bias with automatic devices warrants verification in use; leaves open interchangeability questions for surveys and trials.
The suitability of an automatic sphygmomanometer for epidemiological work was evaluated in two studies. In the first, blood pressure measurements were made alternately on the automatic machine and on a Hawksley random zero instrument on 14 volunteers on each of four consecutive days by a single medical observer. No significant difference was found between the mean diastolic pressure obtained by each instrument but the mean systolic pressure was 5 mm higher on average on the automatic machine. In the second study, the effect of cuff position for the automatic instrument was examined. Differences between recommended and errant cuff positions of up to 4.5 mmHg were recorded but these did not reach statistical significance. These studies indicate that if used carefully this automatic instrument is suitable for survey and experimental use.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gallacher et al. (1985) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: