PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
July 1, 1990Journal of Hypertension72 citations

Inaccuracy of seven popular sphygmomanometers for home measurement of blood pressure

View Full Paper
EBEoin O BrienNANeil Atkins

Key Points

  • To evaluate the accuracy and reliability of seven commercially available home blood pressure monitors using standardized protocols and clinical impact criteria.
  • Evaluated seven commercial blood pressure monitor models (three units per model), testing interdevice variability before and after 1 month of home use.

Structured PICO

Are commercially available home sphygmomanometers accurate compared to a standard mercury sphygmomanometer in subjects with a wide range of blood pressures?

P
Population
85 subjects with a wide range of blood pressures
I
Intervention
Seven models of commercially available home sphygmomanometers (Omron HEM-400C, Philips HP5308, Healthcheck 'Cuffless' CX-5 060020, Nissei Analogue Monitor, Philips HP5306/B, Systema Dr MI-150, Fortec Dr MI-100)
C
Comparator
Simultaneous measurements made by two 'blinded' observers using a standard mercury sphygmomanometer in the same arm
O
Outcome
Device accuracy based on interdevice variability and comparison with standard mercury sphygmomanometer using American National Standard and 'clinical' criteriasurrogate

None of the seven tested home blood pressure monitors met all accuracy criteria for both systolic and diastolic blood pressure measurement, highlighting significant inaccuracies in commercially available devices.

Abstract

Seven models, available commercially for the self-measurement of blood pressure, were subjected to a validation procedure in which three devices of each model were tested by observers who were trained to a high standard of accuracy. The models were the Omron HEM-400C, the Philips HP5308, the Healthcheck 'Cuffless' CX-5 060020, the Nissei Analogue Monitor, the Philips HP5306/B, the Systema Dr MI-150 and the Fortec Dr MI-100. The validation programme had a number of unique features which included assessment of interdevice variability before and after 1 month of home use, and a new form of analysis, which we term 'clinical', based on the likely influence of three grades of device inaccuracy on patient management. In the main validation phase, one device of each model was compared with simultaneous measurements made by two 'blinded' observers using a standard mercury sphygmomanometer (PyMaH Corporation, New Jersey, USA) in the same arm in 85 subjects with a wide range of blood pressures. Three models (the Healthcheck 'Cuffless' CX-5 060020, the Systema Dr MI-150 and the Fortec Dr MI-100) failed the interdevice variability tests and did not reach the main validation test. Two models (the Omron HEM-400C and the Philips HP5306/B) failed on the criteria set down by the American National Standard for Electronic or Automated Sphygmomanometers, as well as the 'clinical' criteria. The remaining two models (the Nissei Analogue Monitor and the Philips HP5308) were acceptable for the measurement of systolic blood pressure by both methods of analysis but failed in the 'clinical' analysis for diastolic blood pressure. The mercury sphygmomanometer was comfortably within the criteria for both methods of analysis.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Brien et al. (1990) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a80f31271edfdad573c6a2dhttps://doi.org/10.1097/00004872-199007000-00005
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper