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 *

282 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 678830)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 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. [Validation of Oscillomat, a device for self-measurement of blood pressure. Comparison with mercury sphygmomanometers].
    Asmar R; Sassano P; Demolis P; Ménard J; Safar M
    Presse Med; 1991 Mar; 20(12):551-5. PubMed ID: 1827894
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Inaccuracy of electronic sphygmomanometers.
    Mann S
    Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol; 1992 May; 19(5):304-6. PubMed ID: 1521362
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Failure of the community-based Vita-Stat automated blood pressure device to accurately measure blood pressure.
    Whitcomb BL; Prochazka A; LoVerde M; Byyny RL
    Arch Fam Med; 1995 May; 4(5):419-24. PubMed ID: 7742964
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Accuracy of a new wrist cuff oscillometric blood pressure device: comparisons with intraarterial and mercury manometer measurements.
    Watson S; Wenzel RR; di Matteo C; Meier B; Lüscher TF
    Am J Hypertens; 1998 Dec; 11(12):1469-74. PubMed ID: 9880129
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Automated versus manual blood pressure measurement: a randomized crossover trial.
    Heinemann M; Sellick K; Rickard C; Reynolds P; McGrail M
    Int J Nurs Pract; 2008 Aug; 14(4):296-302. PubMed ID: 18715391
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 15.