These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

103 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10249889)

  • 1. A new electronic sphygmomanometer: testing observer reliability and instrument comparability.
    Villaveces JW; Evans J
    Urban Health; 1980 Dec; 9(10):43-7. PubMed ID: 10249889
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A comparison of the random-zero and standard mercury sphygmomanometers.
    Parker D; Liu K; Dyer AR; Giumetti D; Liao YL; Stamler J
    Hypertension; 1988 Mar; 11(3):269-72. PubMed ID: 3280484
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The random-zero versus the standard mercury sphygmomanometer: a systematic blood pressure difference.
    de Gaudemaris R; Folsom AR; Prineas RJ; Luepker RV
    Am J Epidemiol; 1985 Feb; 121(2):282-90. PubMed ID: 4014120
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Clinical validation of aneroid sphygmomanometer.
    Saxena Y; Saxena V; Gupta R
    Indian J Physiol Pharmacol; 2012; 56(3):255-61. PubMed ID: 23734440
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparison between an automated and manual sphygmomanometer in a population survey.
    Myers MG; McInnis NH; Fodor GJ; Leenen FH
    Am J Hypertens; 2008 Mar; 21(3):280-3. PubMed ID: 18219304
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. In praise of mercury sphygmomanometers. Electronic readings of blood pressure seem to be higher than readings obtained with mercury sphygmomanometers.
    Ireland J
    BMJ; 2001 May; 322(7296):1249. PubMed ID: 11388188
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A comparison of two sphygmomanometers that may replace the traditional mercury column in the healthcare workplace.
    Elliott WJ; Young PE; DeVivo L; Feldstein J; Black HR
    Blood Press Monit; 2007 Feb; 12(1):23-8. PubMed ID: 17303984
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Comparison of Automated and Mercury Column Blood Pressure Measurements in Health Care Settings.
    Pavlik VN; Hyman DJ; Toronjo C
    J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich); 2000 Mar; 2(2):81-86. PubMed ID: 11416630
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Comparison of Dinamap PRO-100 and mercury sphygmomanometer blood pressure measurements in a population-based study.
    Ni H; Wu C; Prineas R; Shea S; Liu K; Kronmal R; Bild D
    Am J Hypertens; 2006 Apr; 19(4):353-60. PubMed ID: 16580569
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Validation of the OMRON M7 (HEM-780-E) blood pressure measuring device in a population requiring large cuff use according to the International Protocol of the European Society of Hypertension.
    El Feghali RN; Topouchian JA; Pannier BM; El Assaad HA; Asmar RG;
    Blood Press Monit; 2007 Jun; 12(3):173-8. PubMed ID: 17496467
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Validation of two automatic devices for self-measurement of blood pressure according to the International Protocol of the European Society of Hypertension: the Omron M6 (HEM-7001-E) and the Omron R7 (HEM 637-IT).
    Topouchian JA; El Assaad MA; Orobinskaia LV; El Feghali RN; Asmar RG
    Blood Press Monit; 2006 Jun; 11(3):165-71. PubMed ID: 16702826
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. [Reliability of blood pressure measurements; comparison of an electronic meter and a mercury manometer in family practice].
    van Doorn BA; van der Does E; Lubsen J; Rijsterborgh H
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1990 Aug; 134(34):1646-50. PubMed ID: 2215707
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. [Validation of electronic automatic-measurement arterial blood pressure devices].
    de Gaudemaris R; Asmar R; Girerd X; Mallion JM; Maitre A
    Arch Mal Coeur Vaiss; 2000 Aug; 93(8):979-82. PubMed ID: 10989741
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Demise of the mercury sphygmomanometer and the dawning of a new era in blood pressure measurement.
    O'Brien E
    Blood Press Monit; 2003 Feb; 8(1):19-21. PubMed ID: 12604931
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Accuracy of aneroid sphygmomanometer blood pressure recording compared with digital and mercury measurements in Brazil.
    Gill G; Ala L; Gurgel R; Cuevas L
    Trop Doct; 2004 Jan; 34(1):26-7. PubMed ID: 14959969
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. What will replace the mercury sphygmomanometer?
    Pickering TG
    Blood Press Monit; 2003 Feb; 8(1):23-5. PubMed ID: 12604932
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Validation of TM-2655 oscillometric device for blood pressure measurement.
    Kobalava ZD; Kotovskaya YV; Babaeva LA; Moiseev VS
    Blood Press Monit; 2006 Apr; 11(2):87-90. PubMed ID: 16534410
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Validation of three oscillometric blood pressure devices against auscultatory mercury sphygmomanometer in children.
    Wong SN; Tz Sung RY; Leung LC
    Blood Press Monit; 2006 Oct; 11(5):281-91. PubMed ID: 16932037
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. [Calibration and safety of sphygmomanometers in health centers of Murcia].
    Antón JJ; Menárguez JF; Alcántara PA; Díaz MJ; Sánchez MC
    Aten Primaria; 1992 Oct; 10(6):817-20. PubMed ID: 1457703
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. An audit of the use of sphygmomanometers.
    Hussain A; Cox JG
    Br J Clin Pract; 1996; 50(3):136-7. PubMed ID: 8733331
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.