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

Journal Abstract Search

145 related items for PubMed ID: 3756693

  • 1. Observer error in blood pressure measurement.
    Neufeld PD, Johnson DL.
    CMAJ; 1986 Sep 15; 135(6):633-7. PubMed ID: 3756693
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. 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 15; 12(1):23-8. PubMed ID: 17303984
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. Digital recording system of sphygmomanometry.
    Lee J, Park D, Oh H, Kim I, Shen D, Chee Y.
    Blood Press Monit; 2009 Apr 15; 14(2):77-81. PubMed ID: 19305187
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. [How reliable is conventional blood pressure registration? Comparison with a semi-automatic device].
    Kolb C, Huss R, Mengden T, Vetter W.
    Schweiz Rundsch Med Prax; 1991 Mar 19; 80(12):286-90. PubMed ID: 2028135
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. The trained observer better predicts daytime ABPM diastolic blood pressure in hypertensive patients than does an automated (Omron) device.
    Graves JW, Grossardt BR, Gullerud RE, Bailey KR, Feldstein J.
    Blood Press Monit; 2006 Apr 19; 11(2):53-8. PubMed ID: 16534405
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. Validation of a non-mercury digital auscultatory device according to the European Hypertension Society protocol: Rossmax Mandaus II.
    Tasker F, de Greeff A, Liu B, Shennan AH.
    Blood Press Monit; 2009 Jun 19; 14(3):121-4. PubMed ID: 19417636
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. [Reliability of blood pressure measurements; comparison of an electronic meter and a mercury manometer in family practice].
    van Doorn BA, van der Does E, Lubsen J, Rijsterborgh H.
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1990 Aug 25; 134(34):1646-50. PubMed ID: 2215707
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Student nurses' knowledge in relation to blood pressure measurement by sphygmomanometry and auscultation.
    Torrance C, Serginson E.
    Nurse Educ Today; 1996 Dec 25; 16(6):397-402. PubMed ID: 9025534
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Clinical evaluation of the QuietTrak blood pressure recorder according to the protocol of the British Hypertension Society.
    Modesti PA, Costoli A, Cecioni I, Toccafondi S, Carnemolla A, Serneri GG.
    Blood Press Monit; 1996 Feb 25; 1(1):63-68. PubMed ID: 10226204
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. Blood pressure reactivity and bias vary with age in a comparison of traditional and automated methods of measurement.
    Harrison DW, Edwards MC.
    Med Instrum; 1988 Oct 25; 22(5):230-3. PubMed ID: 3185315
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Practice audits: reliability of sphygmomanometers and blood pressure recording bias.
    Ali S, Rouse A.
    J Hum Hypertens; 2002 May 25; 16(5):359-61. PubMed ID: 12082498
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 8.