439 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11416630)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. Accuracy of the Dinamap 1846 XT automated blood pressure monitor.
Beaubien ER; Card CM; Card SE; Biem HJ; Wilson TW
J Hum Hypertens; 2002 Sep; 16(9):647-52. PubMed ID: 12214262
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Measurements of blood pressure with various techniques in daily practice: uncertainty in diagnosing office hypertension with short-term in-hospital registration of blood pressure.
Braun HJ; Rabouw H; Werner H; van Montfrans GA; de Stigter C; Zwinderman AH
Blood Press Monit; 1999 Apr; 4(2):59-64. PubMed ID: 10450115
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Evaluation of the DINAMAP blood pressure monitor in an ambulatory primary care setting.
Ornstein S; Markert G; Litchfield L; Zemp L
J Fam Pract; 1988 May; 26(5):517-21. PubMed ID: 3367116
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The trained observer better predicts daytime ABPM diastolic blood pressure in hypertensive patients than does an automated (Omron) device.
Graves JW; Grossardt BR; Gullerud RE; Bailey KR; Feldstein J
Blood Press Monit; 2006 Apr; 11(2):53-8. PubMed ID: 16534405
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Accuracy of ambulatory blood pressure monitors in routine clinical practice.
Pang TC; Brown MA
Am J Hypertens; 2006 Aug; 19(8):801-9. PubMed ID: 16876678
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Lack of comparability of two automated blood pressure monitors in a hypertensive population.
Linden W; Wright JM
Clin Invest Med; 1986; 9(2):71-5. PubMed ID: 2873912
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Blood pressure randomized methodology study comparing automatic oscillometric and mercury sphygmomanometer devices: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2009-2010.
Ostchega Y; Zhang G; Sorlie P; Hughes JP; Reed-Gillette DS; Nwankwo T; Yoon S
Natl Health Stat Report; 2012 Oct; (59):1-15. PubMed ID: 24984529
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Accuracy of oscillometric devices in children and adults.
Chiolero A; Paradis G; Lambert M
Blood Press; 2010 Aug; 19(4):254-9. PubMed ID: 20156034
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Oscillometric finger blood pressure versus brachial auscultative blood pressure recording.
Iyriboz Y
J Fam Pract; 1990 Oct; 31(4):376-80. PubMed ID: 2212968
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Age-based differences between mercury sphygmomanometer and pulse dynamic blood pressure measurements.
Brinton TJ; Walls ED; Yajnik AK; Chio SS
Blood Press Monit; 1998 Apr; 3(2):125-129. PubMed ID: 10212342
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Validation of the DINAMAP ProCare blood pressure device according to the international protocol in an adult population.
Reinders A; Reggiori F; Shennan AH
Blood Press Monit; 2006 Oct; 11(5):293-6. PubMed ID: 16932038
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Automated versus manual blood pressure measurement: a randomized crossover trial.
Heinemann M; Sellick K; Rickard C; Reynolds P; McGrail M
Int J Nurs Pract; 2008 Aug; 14(4):296-302. PubMed ID: 18715391
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Evaluation and effects of the Omron 725 CIC device for measuring blood pressure in a hypertension clinic.
Fonseca-Reyes S; Cervantes-Munguía R; de Alba-García JG; Parra-Carrillo JZ; López-Maldonado F; Montes-Casillas M
Blood Press Monit; 2007 Oct; 12(5):321-7. PubMed ID: 17890971
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Clinical evaluation of the QuietTrak blood pressure recorder according to the protocol of the British Hypertension Society.
Modesti PA; Costoli A; Cecioni I; Toccafondi S; Carnemolla A; Serneri GG
Blood Press Monit; 1996 Feb; 1(1):63-68. PubMed ID: 10226204
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
