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 *

392 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16945515)

  • 1. Effect of blood pressure instrument and cuff side on blood pressure reading in pregnant women in the lateral recumbent position.
    Kinsella SM
    Int J Obstet Anesth; 2006 Oct; 15(4):290-3. PubMed ID: 16945515
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Determining blood pressure in pregnancy. Positional hydrostatic effects.
    Hallak M; Bottoms SF; Knudson K; Zarfati D; Abramovici H
    J Reprod Med; 1997 Jun; 42(6):333-6. PubMed ID: 9219119
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Both body and arm position significantly influence blood pressure measurement.
    Netea RT; Lenders JW; Smits P; Thien T
    J Hum Hypertens; 2003 Jul; 17(7):459-62. PubMed ID: 12821952
    [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. Comparison of aortic and brachial cuff pressures in flat supine and lateral recumbent positions.
    Newton KM
    Heart Lung; 1981; 10(5):821-6. PubMed ID: 6912233
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. The effect of hydrostatic pressure on the interpretation of the supine pressor test.
    Benedetti TJ; Read JA; Miller FC
    J Reprod Med; 1982 Mar; 27(3):161-4. PubMed ID: 7086763
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. The position of the arm during blood pressure measurement in sitting position.
    Adiyaman A; Verhoeff R; Lenders JW; Deinum J; Thien T
    Blood Press Monit; 2006 Dec; 11(6):309-13. PubMed ID: 17106314
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. The effect of different body positions on blood pressure.
    Eşer I; Khorshid L; Güneş UY; Demir Y
    J Clin Nurs; 2007 Jan; 16(1):137-40. PubMed ID: 17181675
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Validation of the Braun BP 3550 wrist blood pressure measuring device with a position sensor and an EasyClick cuff according to the International Protocol in adults.
    Ilman N; Altunkan S; Kayatürk N; Altunkan E
    Blood Press Monit; 2007 Feb; 12(1):45-9. PubMed ID: 17303987
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Postural blood pressure differences in pregnancy. A prospective study of blood pressure differences between supine and left lateral position as measured by ultrasound.
    Van Dongen PW; Eskes TK; Martin CB; Van't Hof MA
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 1980 Sep; 138(1):1-5. PubMed ID: 7416198
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Clinical comparison of automatic, noninvasive measurements of blood pressure in the forearm and upper arm with the patient supine or with the head of the bed raised 45 degrees: a follow-up study.
    Schell K; Lyons D; Bradley E; Bucher L; Seckel M; Wakai S; Carson E; Waterhouse J; Chichester M; Bartell D; Foraker T; Simpson EK
    Am J Crit Care; 2006 Mar; 15(2):196-205. PubMed ID: 16501139
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The impact of arm position on the measurement of orthostatic blood pressure.
    Guss DA; Abdelnur D; Hemingway TJ
    J Emerg Med; 2008 May; 34(4):377-82. PubMed ID: 18180133
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 20.