Key result
This letter emphasizes the importance of comparing the reproducibility of 24-hour automated blood pressure monitoring with the variability of standard office blood pressure measurements.
Highlights the importance of comparing the variability of 24-hour automated blood pressure monitoring with office blood pressures to fully appreciate its reproducibility.
In their recent article concerning indirect measurement of blood pressures, Bailey and Bauer1emphasize the importance of collection technique on the variability of indirect blood pressure measurements. In their conservative discussion of 24-hour automated blood pressure (ABP) monitoring (ABPM), the authors express a lack of confidence in the accuracy and reproducibility of ABPM, in part because of our experience with repeatability of ABPM during one of our research projects.2However, to fully appreciate the reproducibility of ABPM, the variability of office blood pressures (OBPs) using a standard mercury sphygmomanometer should be presented in comparison. We presented a direct comparison of the variability of office and 24-hour ABPs in a subsequent article,3which, although not referenced by the authors, contributes new information on the variability of indirect blood pressures and, thus, deserves comment. For the purposes of this discussion,reliabilityof blood pressures for an individual can be
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Peter B. Bottini (1994) conducted a letter in Blood pressure measurement variability. 24-hour automated blood pressure (ABP) monitoring vs. Office blood pressures (OBPs) using a standard mercury sphygmomanometer was evaluated. This letter emphasizes the importance of comparing the reproducibility of 24-hour automated blood pressure monitoring with the variability of standard office blood pressure measurements.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: