Key result
Standard vital sign station screening yielded higher blood pressure readings than examination room measurements in 74% of cases, with a mean systolic difference of 13.2 ± 8.9 mm Hg.
Why the study?
Does standard practice vital sign station screening accurately measure blood pressure compared to Fourth Task Force recommendations in pediatric patients?
Population
390 children evaluated at 580 visits to the Pediatric Hypertension Clinic at Texas Children's Hospital
Comparison
Blood pressure measurement by trained personnel… vs Standard practice vital sign station screening
Design
Cross-sectional
Authors
Loading...
Elevated station readings warrant exam-room confirmation; leaves open whether this discrepancy alters pediatric hypertension prevalence estimates.
Cross-Sectional (n=390)
No
Does standard practice vital sign station screening accurately measure blood pressure compared to Fourth Task Force recommendations in pediatric patients?
Mean Difference: 13.2
Standard vital sign station screening significantly overestimates blood pressure in children compared to standardized examination room measurements, highlighting the need for reevaluation of elevated initial readings.
Podoll et al. (2007) conducted a cross-sectional in Pediatric hypertension (n=390). Standard practice vital sign station screening vs. Measurement by trained personnel in accordance with Fourth Task Force recommendations was evaluated on Difference in systolic and diastolic blood pressure measurements (MD 13.2). Standard vital sign station screening yielded higher blood pressure readings than examination room measurements in 74% of cases, with a mean systolic difference of 13.2 ± 8.9 mm Hg.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: