298 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2378339)
1. Differences in blood pressure levels obtained by auscultatory and oscillometric methods.
Weaver MG; Park MK; Lee DH
Am J Dis Child; 1990 Aug; 144(8):911-4. PubMed ID: 2378339
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Comparison of auscultatory and oscillometric blood pressures.
Park MK; Menard SW; Yuan C
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med; 2001 Jan; 155(1):50-3. PubMed ID: 11177062
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Clinical evaluation of the oscillometric blood pressure monitor in adults and children based on the 1992 AAMI SP-10 standards.
Ling J; Ohara Y; Orime Y; Noon GP; Takatani S
J Clin Monit; 1995 Mar; 11(2):123-30. PubMed ID: 7760085
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Effect of the shapes of the oscillometric pulse amplitude envelopes and their characteristic ratios on the differences between auscultatory and oscillometric blood pressure measurements.
Amoore JN; Vacher E; Murray IC; Mieke S; King ST; Smith FE; Murray A
Blood Press Monit; 2007 Oct; 12(5):297-305. PubMed ID: 17890968
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Automatic blood pressure measurement: the oscillometric waveform shape is a potential contributor to differences between oscillometric and auscultatory pressure measurements.
Amoore JN; Lemesre Y; Murray IC; Mieke S; King ST; Smith FE; Murray A
J Hypertens; 2008 Jan; 26(1):35-43. PubMed ID: 18090538
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. There is poor agreement between manual auscultatory and automated oscillometric methods for the measurement of blood pressure in normotensive pregnant women.
Pomini F; Scavo M; Ferrazzani S; De Carolis S; Caruso A; Mancuso S
J Matern Fetal Med; 2001 Dec; 10(6):398-403. PubMed ID: 11798450
[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. Auscultatory versus oscillometric measurement of blood pressure in octogenarians.
Rosholm JU; Arnspang S; Matzen L; Jacobsen IA
Blood Press; 2012 Oct; 21(5):269-72. PubMed ID: 22545576
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Accuracy of blood pressure measurement by the Dinamap monitor in infants and children.
Park MK; Menard SM
Pediatrics; 1987 Jun; 79(6):907-14. PubMed ID: 3588145
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. The San Antonio Biethnic Children's Blood Pressure Study: auscultatory findings.
Menard SW; Park MK; Yuan CH
J Pediatr Health Care; 1999; 13(5):237-44. PubMed ID: 10776199
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Single cuff comparison of two methods for indirect measurement of arterial blood pressure: standard auscultatory method versus automatic oscillometric method.
Pessenhofer H
Basic Res Cardiol; 1986; 81(1):101-9. PubMed ID: 3718426
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Is one measurement enough to evaluate blood pressure among adolescents? A blood pressure screening experience in more than 9000 children with a subset comparison of auscultatory to mercury measurements.
Negroni-Balasquide X; Bell CS; Samuel J; Samuels JA
J Am Soc Hypertens; 2016 Feb; 10(2):95-100. PubMed ID: 26875474
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparison of automatic oscillometric arterial pressure measurement with conventional auscultatory measurement in the labour ward.
Hasan MA; Thomas TA; Prys-Roberts C
Br J Anaesth; 1993 Feb; 70(2):141-4. PubMed ID: 8435255
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A simulation study of the consistency of oscillometric blood pressure measurements with and without artefacts.
Amoore JN
Blood Press Monit; 2000 Apr; 5(2):69-79. PubMed ID: 10828893
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Automated blood pressure measurement devices: a potential source of morbidity in preeclampsia?
Quinn M
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 1994 May; 170(5 Pt 1):1303-7. PubMed ID: 8178857
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Effect of overcuffing on the accuracy of oscillometric blood pressure measurements.
Ringrose J; Millay J; Babwick SA; Neil M; Langkaas LA; Padwal R
J Am Soc Hypertens; 2015 Jul; 9(7):563-8. PubMed ID: 26101170
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Comparison of the automated non-invasive oscillometric blood pressure monitor (BpTRU) with the auscultatory mercury sphygmomanometer in a paediatric population.
Mattu GS; Heran BS; Wright JM
Blood Press Monit; 2004 Feb; 9(1):39-45. PubMed ID: 15021077
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparison of the oscillometric blood pressure monitor (BPM-100(Beta) ) with the auscultatory mercury sphygmomanometer.
Mattu GS; Perry TL; Wright JM
Blood Press Monit; 2001 Jun; 6(3):153-9. PubMed ID: 11518839
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
