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 *

268 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1979092)

  • 1. Inaccuracy of the Hawksley random zero sphygmomanometer.
    O'Brien E; Mee F; Atkins N; O'Malley K
    Lancet; 1990 Dec; 336(8729):1465-8. PubMed ID: 1979092
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Does the Hawksley random zero sphygmomanometer underestimate blood pressure, and by how much?
    Mackie A; Whincup P; McKinnon M
    J Hum Hypertens; 1995 May; 9(5):337-43. PubMed ID: 7623370
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Using Hawksley random zero sphygmomanometer as a gold standard may result in misleading conclusions.
    Conroy RM; Atkins N; Mee F; O'Brien E; O'Malley K
    Blood Press; 1994 Sep; 3(5):283-6. PubMed ID: 7866591
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Agreement of blood pressure measurements between random-zero and standard mercury sphygmomanometers.
    Yang W; Gu D; Chen J; Jaquish CE; Rao DC; Wu X; Hixson JE; Duan X; Kelly TN; Hamm LL; Whelton PK; He J;
    Am J Med Sci; 2008 Nov; 336(5):373-8. PubMed ID: 19011391
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The Dinamap 1846SX automated blood pressure recorder: comparison with the Hawksley random zero sphygmomanometer under field conditions.
    Whincup PH; Bruce NG; Cook DG; Shaper AG
    J Epidemiol Community Health; 1992 Apr; 46(2):164-9. PubMed ID: 1583434
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Clinical evaluation of a finger oscillometric blood pressure device.
    Sesler JM; Munroe WP; McKenney JM
    DICP; 1991 Dec; 25(12):1310-4. PubMed ID: 1815423
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The accuracy of automated blood pressure measuring devices in patients with controlled atrial fibrillation.
    Stewart MJ; Gough K; Padfield PL
    J Hypertens; 1995 Mar; 13(3):297-300. PubMed ID: 7622850
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Hawksley random zero sphygmomanometer versus the standard sphygmomanometer: an investigation of mechanisms.
    Kinirons MT; Maskrey VL; Lawson M; Swift CG; Jackson SH
    J Hum Hypertens; 1995 Jul; 9(7):571-3. PubMed ID: 7562887
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Sources of inaccuracy in the use of the Hawksley random-zero sphygmomanometer.
    McGurk C; Nugent A; McAuley D; Silke B
    J Hypertens; 1997 Dec; 15(12 Pt 1):1379-84. PubMed ID: 9431841
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Field evaluation of the Copal UA-231 automatic sphygmomanometer.
    Rogers S; Smith GD; Doyle W
    J Epidemiol Community Health; 1988 Dec; 42(4):321-4. PubMed ID: 3256572
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Arterial stiffness as underlying mechanism of disagreement between an oscillometric blood pressure monitor and a sphygmomanometer.
    van Popele NM; Bos WJ; de Beer NA; van Der Kuip DA; Hofman A; Grobbee DE; Witteman JC
    Hypertension; 2000 Oct; 36(4):484-8. PubMed ID: 11040223
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Comparison of blood pressure measurements between an automated oscillometric device and a Hawksley random-zero sphygmomanometer in the northern Sweden MONICA study.
    Eriksson M; Carlberg B; Jansson JH
    Blood Press Monit; 2012 Aug; 17(4):164-70. PubMed ID: 22781634
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring during pregnancy. Comparison with mercury sphygmomanometry.
    Brown MA; Buddle ML; Cario GM; Whitworth JA
    Am J Hypertens; 1993 Sep; 6(9):745-9. PubMed ID: 8110427
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Comparison of performance of various sphygmomanometers with intra-arterial blood-pressure readings.
    Hunyor SN; Flynn JM; Cochineas C
    Br Med J; 1978 Jul; 2(6131):159-62. PubMed ID: 678830
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 14.