Why the study?
With the development of oscillometric blood pressure monitors, questions arose regarding regular monitoring of their clinical accuracy using blood pressure simulators.
Is it appropriate to use blood pressure simulators to determine the clinical accuracy of automated non-invasive sphygmomanometers?
Is it appropriate to use blood pressure simulators to determine the clinical accuracy of automated non-invasive sphygmomanometers?
Blood pressure simulators are suitable for determining the stability of measurement by a given tonometer, but not its clinical accuracy, due to significant differences between simulators.
Simulators should not determine clinical accuracy of BP monitors without device-specific calibration; leaves open their role for repeatability assessment only.
Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of death in developed countries. Blood measurement is an integral part of the diagnosis of these diseases. With the development of oscillometric blood pressure monitors, the question of regular monitoring of their clinical accuracy (overall error) has arisen. This paper deals with the overall accuracy of two commercial tonometers (Hartmann Digital HG 160 comfort and HuBDIC HBP–1520), using two calibrated blood pressure simulators (Fluke BP Pump 2 and Fluke ProSim). Using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test, significant differences between the simulators have been proved for all measurements – both for SBP and DBP measurements and both for Hartmann Digital HG 160 and HuBDIC HBP–1520 tonometers (p < 0.001). Therefore, without the precise knowledge of the relationship between the blood pressure monitor and the simulator used, it is not appropriate to use simulators to determine the overall error. On the other hand, the tested devices had a very good repeatability of the measurements at all presets, with both simulators. From this point of view, it is suitable to use simulators to determine the stability of measurement by a given tonometer rather than its clinical accuracy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Havlík et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: