204 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31764009)
1. Comparison between blood pressure readings using a mercury versus an aneroid sphygmomanometer.
Farhan K; Naqvi STS; Rizvi SAH; Zafar A; Rawala MS
Blood Press Monit; 2020 Feb; 25(1):34-38. PubMed ID: 31764009
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Validation of Missouri aneroid sphygmomanometer to measure blood pressure in patients with cancer.
Ferreira KA; Santos AC; Arthur TC; Santos DA; Pereira D; Freitas EO; Fukuda FM; Baia WR
Arq Bras Cardiol; 2010 Aug; 95(2):244-50. PubMed ID: 20658091
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Which is More Accurate in Measuring the Blood Pressure? A Digital or an Aneroid Sphygmomanometer.
Shahbabu B; Dasgupta A; Sarkar K; Sahoo SK
J Clin Diagn Res; 2016 Mar; 10(3):LC11-4. PubMed ID: 27134902
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Clinical validation of aneroid sphygmomanometer.
Saxena Y; Saxena V; Gupta R
Indian J Physiol Pharmacol; 2012; 56(3):255-61. PubMed ID: 23734440
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Evaluating the accuracy of an aneroid sphygmomanometer in a clinical trial setting.
Ma Y; Temprosa M; Fowler S; Prineas RJ; Montez MG; Brown-Friday J; Carrion-Petersen ML; Whittington T;
Am J Hypertens; 2009 Mar; 22(3):263-6. PubMed ID: 19057514
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Hidden errors of aneroid sphygmomanometers.
Waugh JJ; Gupta M; Rushbrook J; Halligan A; Shennan AH
Blood Press Monit; 2002 Dec; 7(6):309-12. PubMed ID: 12488650
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. [Mean blood pressure among the adults in China 2010-2012: based on the results of mercury sphygmomanometer and converted electronic sphygmomanometer].
Yu DM; Fu P; Yu WT; Guo HJ; Yang XG; Zhao WH; Zhao LY
Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2017 Oct; 51(10):933-938. PubMed ID: 29036997
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Accuracy of the pressure scale of sphygmomanometers in clinical use within primary care.
Coleman AJ; Steel SD; Ashworth M; Vowler SL; Shennan A
Blood Press Monit; 2005 Aug; 10(4):181-8. PubMed ID: 16077263
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Calibration of blood pressure data after replacement of the standard mercury sphygmomanometer by an oscillometric device and concurrent change of cuffs.
Neuhauser HK; Ellert U; Thamm M; Adler C
Blood Press Monit; 2015 Feb; 20(1):39-42. PubMed ID: 25144600
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Comparison of mercury and aneroid blood pressure measurements in youth.
Shah AS; Dolan LM; D'Agostino RB; Standiford D; Davis C; Testaverde L; Pihoker C; Daniels SR; Urbina EM;
Pediatrics; 2012 May; 129(5):e1205-10. PubMed ID: 22508914
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparison of oscillometric blood pressure measurements at the wrist with an upper-arm auscultatory mercury sphygmomanometer.
Rogers P; Burke V; Stroud P; Puddey IB
Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol; 1999; 26(5-6):477-81. PubMed ID: 10386242
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Simultaneous validation of the SunTech 247 diagnostic station blood pressure measurement device according to the British Hypertension Society protocol, the International Protocol and the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation standards.
Polo Friz H; Facchetti R; Primitz L; Beltrame L; Galbiati V; Ricioppo A; Bombelli M; Sega R
Blood Press Monit; 2009 Oct; 14(5):222-7. PubMed ID: 19741510
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Blood pressure monitoring with home monitors versus mercury sphygmomanometer.
Rotch AL; Dean JO; Kendrach MG; Wright SG; Woolley TW
Ann Pharmacother; 2001; 35(7-8):817-22. PubMed ID: 11485126
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. [Prevalence of hypertension among 18 years old and over adults in 2010-2012 in China: based on the value of mercury sphygmomanometer and converted electronic sphygmomanometer].
Zhao L; Yu D; Fu P; Yu W; Guo H; Yang X
Wei Sheng Yan Jiu; 2018 Jan; 47(1):7-12. PubMed ID: 29903215
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparisons of auscultatory hybrid and automated sphygmomanometers with mercury sphygmomanometry in hypertensive and normotensive pregnant women: parallel validation studies.
Davis GK; Roberts LM; Mangos GJ; Brown MA
J Hypertens; 2015 Mar; 33(3):499-505; discussion 505-6. PubMed ID: 25380148
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
