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 *

142 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16867915)

  • 1. Time poor: rushing decreases the accuracy and reliability of blood pressure measurement technique in pregnancy.
    Reinders LW; Mos CN; Thornton C; Ogle R; Makris A; Child A; Hennessy A
    Hypertens Pregnancy; 2006; 25(2):81-91. PubMed ID: 16867915
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Validity and reliability of a novel slow cuff-deflation system for noninvasive blood pressure monitoring in patients with continuous-flow left ventricular assist device.
    Lanier GM; Orlanes K; Hayashi Y; Murphy J; Flannery M; Te-Frey R; Uriel N; Yuzefpolskaya M; Mancini DM; Naka Y; Takayama H; Jorde UP; Demmer RT; Colombo PC
    Circ Heart Fail; 2013 Sep; 6(5):1005-12. PubMed ID: 23811966
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Rapid assessment of blood pressure in the obstetric day unit using Microlife MaM technology.
    Wilton A; De Greef A; Shennan A
    Hypertens Pregnancy; 2007; 26(1):31-7. PubMed ID: 17454216
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Agreement between emergency medical services and expert blood pressure measurements.
    Cienki JJ; DeLuca LA
    J Emerg Med; 2012 Jul; 43(1):64-8. PubMed ID: 21982624
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Measuring blood pressure using the mercury sphygmomanometer.
    Valler-Jones T; Wedgbury K
    Br J Nurs; 2005 Feb 10-23; 14(3):145-50. PubMed ID: 15788933
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Comparison of automated oscillometric versus auscultatory blood pressure measurement.
    Landgraf J; Wishner SH; Kloner RA
    Am J Cardiol; 2010 Aug; 106(3):386-8. PubMed ID: 20643251
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Can electronic sphygmomanometers be used for measurement of blood pressure at high altitudes?
    Li S; Zhao X; Ba S; He F; Lam CT; Ke L; Li N; Yan LL; Li X; Wu Y
    Blood Press Monit; 2012 Apr; 17(2):62-8. PubMed ID: 22343751
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Clinical assessment of blood pressure.
    McKay DW; Campbell NR; Parab LS; Chockalingam A; Fodor JG
    J Hum Hypertens; 1990 Dec; 4(6):639-45. PubMed ID: 2096205
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The assessment of blood pressure in pregnant women: pitfalls and novel approaches.
    Hurrell A; Webster L; Chappell LC; Shennan AH
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2022 Feb; 226(2S):S804-S818. PubMed ID: 33514455
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A prospective randomized study of automated versus mercury blood pressure recordings in hypertensive pregnancy (PRAM Study).
    Brown MA; Roberts LM; Mackenzie C; Mangos G; Davis GK
    Hypertens Pregnancy; 2012; 31(1):107-19. PubMed ID: 21219121
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A perfect replacement for the mercury sphygmomanometer: the case of the hybrid blood pressure monitor.
    Stergiou GS; Karpettas N; Kollias A; Destounis A; Tzamouranis D
    J Hum Hypertens; 2012 Apr; 26(4):220-7. PubMed ID: 21900952
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Terminal digit bias in a specialty hypertension faculty practice.
    Thavarajah S; White WB; Mansoor GA
    J Hum Hypertens; 2003 Dec; 17(12):819-22. PubMed ID: 14704725
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. [Blood pressure measurement by primary care physicians: comparison with the standard method].
    Asai Y; Kawamoto R; Nago N; Kajii E
    Nihon Koshu Eisei Zasshi; 2000 Apr; 47(4):326-36. PubMed ID: 10835894
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Korotkoff sound versus oscillometric cuff sphygmomanometers: comparison between auscultatory and DynaPulse blood pressure measurements.
    Chio SS; Urbina EM; Lapointe J; Tsai J; Berenson GS
    J Am Soc Hypertens; 2011; 5(1):12-20. PubMed ID: 21269907
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Blood pressure rising: differences between current clinical and recommended measurement techniques.
    Burgess SE; MacLaughlin EJ; Smith PA; Salcido A; Benton TJ
    J Am Soc Hypertens; 2011; 5(6):484-8. PubMed ID: 22015319
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. How important is the recommended slow cuff pressure deflation rate for blood pressure measurement?
    Zheng D; Amoore JN; Mieke S; Murray A
    Ann Biomed Eng; 2011 Oct; 39(10):2584-91. PubMed ID: 21735319
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Blood Pressure Measurement Biases in Clinical Settings, Alabama, 2010-2011.
    Sewell K; Halanych JH; Russell LB; Andreae SJ; Cherrington AL; Martin MY; Pisu M; Safford MM
    Prev Chronic Dis; 2016 Jan; 13():E01. PubMed ID: 26741995
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Random zero sphygmomanometer versus automatic oscillometric blood pressure monitor; is either the instrument of choice?
    Goonasekera CD; Dillon MJ
    J Hum Hypertens; 1995 Nov; 9(11):885-9. PubMed ID: 8583467
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.