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 *

113 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8307636)

  • 1. Potential problems with the random-zero sphygmomanometer.
    Birkett NJ
    Hypertension; 1994 Feb; 23(2):254-7. PubMed ID: 8307636
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Properties of the random zero sphygmomanometer.
    Kronmal RA; Rutan GH; Manolio TA; Borhani NO
    Hypertension; 1993 May; 21(5):632-7. PubMed ID: 8491498
    [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. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. [Comparative study of 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitors with standard zero and random zero sphygmomanometers].
    Tislér A; Barna I; Châtel R
    Orv Hetil; 1994 Jun; 135(26):1415-9. PubMed ID: 8028897
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. [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]  

  • 17. [Are automatic devices suitable for blood pressure determinations?].
    Adorjani C; Siegenthaler W; Vetter W
    Schweiz Med Wochenschr; 1979 Sep; 109(33):1225-30. PubMed ID: 493912
    [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. 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]  

  • 20. [Value of blood pressure of adults depending on method of measurement].
    Wielemborek-Musiał K; Jegier A
    Pol Arch Med Wewn; 2006 Jun; 115(6):529-34. PubMed ID: 17263224
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.