Key result
Oscillometric BP devices correlate poorly with mercury sphygmomanometry and overestimate higher systolic readings in children.
Why the study?
Do oscillometric blood pressure devices provide accurate measurements compared to mercury sphygmomanometry in children in resource-poor settings?
Cross-Sectional
Do oscillometric blood pressure devices provide accurate measurements compared to mercury sphygmomanometry in children in resource-poor settings?
Automated oscillometric blood pressure devices show poor correlation and agreement with mercury sphygmomanometry in children, overestimating systolic BP at higher readings, and thus cannot be recommended for this population.
May overestimate SBP in children; leaves open validation of oscillometric devices versus mercury sphygmomanometry in resource-poor settings.
OBJECTIVE: To compare oscillometric blood pressure devices with mercury sphygmomanometry in children. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Blood pressure measurements were obtained with a mercury sphygmomanometer and one of two oscillometric devices. Correlations within each device and agreement between the two devices were evaluated. RESULTS: In children, blood pressure measured by the oscillometric device was poorly correlated and had wide limits of agreements with the sphygmomanometer. Furthermore, the oscillometric devices overestimated systolic blood pressure in children with higher readings. CONCLUSION: The applicability of automated blood pressure measuring devices in children has limitations and cannot be recommended.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Miranda et al. (2008) conducted a cross-sectional in Blood pressure measurement in children. Oscillometric blood pressure devices vs. Mercury sphygmomanometry was evaluated on Correlation and agreement between oscillometric devices and mercury sphygmomanometry. Oscillometric blood pressure devices were poorly correlated with mercury sphygmomanometry and overestimated systolic blood pressure in children with higher readings.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: