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 *

182 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8435255)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Comparison of intra-arterial and automated oscillometric blood pressure measurement methods in postoperative hypertensive patients.
    Loubser PG
    Med Instrum; 1986; 20(5):255-9. PubMed ID: 3784934
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Blood pressure measurement by oscillometric and auscultatory methods in normotensive pregnant women.
    Vigato ES; Lamas JLT
    Rev Bras Enferm; 2019 Dec; 72(suppl 3):162-169. PubMed ID: 31851249
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Assessment of the accuracy of indirect blood pressure measurements.
    Ochiai H; Miyazaki N; Miyata T; Mitake A; Tochikubo O; Ishii M
    Jpn Heart J; 1997 May; 38(3):393-407. PubMed ID: 9290574
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Accuracy of four indirect methods of blood pressure measurement, with hemodynamic correlations.
    Gravlee GP; Brockschmidt JK
    J Clin Monit; 1990 Oct; 6(4):284-98. PubMed ID: 2230858
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Radial artery tonometry: moderately accurate but unpredictable technique of continuous non-invasive arterial pressure measurement.
    Weiss BM; Spahn DR; Rahmig H; Rohling R; Pasch T
    Br J Anaesth; 1996 Mar; 76(3):405-11. PubMed ID: 8785142
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Biases in the measurement of arterial pressure.
    Finnie KJ; Watts DG; Armstrong PW
    Crit Care Med; 1984 Nov; 12(11):965-8. PubMed ID: 6499482
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Validation of portable noninvasive blood pressure monitoring devices: comparisons with intra-arterial and sphygmomanometer measurements.
    Graettinger WF; Lipson JL; Cheung DG; Weber MA
    Am Heart J; 1988 Oct; 116(4):1155-60. PubMed ID: 3177191
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. From Korotkoff and Marey to automatic non-invasive oscillometric blood pressure measurement: does easiness come with reliability?
    Benmira A; Perez-Martin A; Schuster I; Aichoun I; Coudray S; Bereksi-Reguig F; Dauzat M
    Expert Rev Med Devices; 2016; 13(2):179-89. PubMed ID: 26641026
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Automated blood pressure measurements in laboring women: are they reliable?
    Marx GF; Schwalbe SS; Cho E; Whitty JE
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 1993 Mar; 168(3 Pt 1):796-8. PubMed ID: 8456882
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Clinical comparison of automated auscultatory and oscillometric and catheter-transducer measurements of arterial pressure.
    Davis RF
    J Clin Monit; 1985 Apr; 1(2):114-9. PubMed ID: 3831250
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.