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.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: New clinical validation method for automated sphygmomanometer: a proposal by Japan ISO-WG for sphygmomanometer standard.
    Author: Shirasaki O, Asou Y, Takahashi Y.
    Journal: Blood Press Monit; 2007 Dec; 12(6):381-3. PubMed ID: 18277315.
    Abstract:
    INTRODUCTION: Owing to fast or stepwise cuff deflation, or measuring at places other than the upper arm, the clinical accuracy of most recent automated sphygmomanometers (auto-BPMs) cannot be validated by one-arm simultaneous comparison, which would be the only accurate validation method based on auscultation. Two main alternative methods are provided by current standards, that is, two-arm simultaneous comparison (method 1) and one-arm sequential comparison (method 2); however, the accuracy of these validation methods might not be sufficient to compensate for the suspicious accuracy in lateral blood pressure (BP) differences (LD) and/or BP variations (BPV) between the device and reference readings. Thus, the Japan ISO-WG for sphygmomanometer standards has been studying a new method that might improve validation accuracy (method 3). The purpose of this study is to determine the appropriateness of method 3 by comparing immunity to LD and BPV with those of the current validation methods (methods 1 and 2). METHOD: The validation accuracy of the above three methods was assessed in human participants [N=120, 45+/-15.3 years (mean+/-SD)]. An oscillometric automated monitor, Omron HEM-762, was used as the tested device. RESULTS: When compared with the others, methods 1 and 3 showed a smaller intra-individual standard deviation of device error (SD1), suggesting their higher reproducibility of validation. The SD1 by method 2 (P=0.004) significantly correlated with the participant's BP, supporting our hypothesis that the increased SD of device error by method 2 is at least partially caused by essential BPV. Method 3 showed a significantly (P=0.0044) smaller interparticipant SD of device error (SD2), suggesting its higher interparticipant consistency of validation. CONCLUSION: Among the methods of validation of the clinical accuracy of auto-BPMs, method 3, which showed the highest reproducibility and highest interparticipant consistency, can be proposed as being the most appropriate.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]