Key result
Oscillometric blood pressure measurement shows similar pediatric hypertension prevalence to auscultatory monitoring.
Why the study?
Evidence supporting the use of oscillometric blood pressure devices in pediatric populations is limited, affecting reliable hypertension prevalence estimation in surveys.
Does blood pressure measurement using an oscillometric device provide comparable hypertension prevalence estimates to an auscultatory device in children and adolescents?
Cross-Sectional (n=251)
Yes
Does blood pressure measurement using an oscillometric device provide comparable hypertension prevalence estimates to an auscultatory device in children and adolescents?
Absolute Event Rate: 4.4% vs 4.8%
Oscillometric devices show acceptable diagnostic agreement with auscultatory methods for measuring systolic blood pressure and estimating pediatric hypertension prevalence, supporting their feasibility in large-scale public health surveillance.
Comparable prevalence supports oscillometric devices for pediatric hypertension screening; leaves open outcome validation in larger cohorts.
Objectives: Accurate blood pressure (BP) measurement is essential for reliably estimating hypertension prevalence in population-based surveys. However, evidence supporting the use of oscillometric BP devices in pediatric populations remains limited. This study compared BP measurements obtained using an oscillometric device (OD) and an auscultatory device (AD) and evaluated inter-device agreement and the impact of device choice on hypertension prevalence estimates. Methods: BP was measured sequentially with the AD and OD in 251 children and adolescents participating in the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Inter-device agreement was assessed using mean differences, limits of agreement, concordance correlation coefficients (CCCs), and regression analyses. Differences in prevalence estimates for elevated BP (EBP) and hypertension were also examined. Results: Mean inter-device differences were minimal for systolic BP (SBP) (0.2 ± 5.9 mmHg) but negative for diastolic BP (DBP) (-1.5 ± 6.1 mmHg), with larger discrepancies in older girls. Agreement was moderate to good for SBP (CCC = 0.79) and weaker for DBP (CCC = 0.60). Nevertheless, more than 85% of paired measurements were within ±10 mmHg. Prevalence estimates for EBP (11.6% vs. 10.0%) and hypertension (4.8% vs. 4.4%) were comparable between devices, with relatively high negative agreement and overall agreement. Conclusion: Despite modest underestimation of DBP in specific subgroups, oscillometric BP measurement showed acceptable agreement with the auscultatory method and yielded similar hypertension prevalence estimates. These findings suggest that oscillometric devices may be useful for pediatric BP measurement in public health surveillance systems.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kim et al. (2026) conducted a cross-sectional in Hypertension (n=251). Oscillometric blood pressure device (Microlife WatchBP Office AFIB) vs. Auscultatory blood pressure device (Accoson Greenlight 300™) was evaluated on Hypertension prevalence. Oscillometric blood pressure measurement yielded a similar hypertension prevalence estimate (4.4%) compared to the standard auscultatory method (4.8%) in children and adolescents.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: