The Annals the journal of Pharmacy Technology
home help contact us subscription past issues search current issue
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


The Annals of Pharmacotherapy: Vol. 35, No. 7, pp. 817-822. DOI 10.1345/aph.10270
© 2001 Harvey Whitney Books Company.
This Article
Right arrow PDF
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Articles Ahead of Print
Right arrow [Order Reprint]
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rotch, A.
Right arrow Articles by Woolley, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Rotch, A.
Right arrow Articles by Woolley, T.


Research Articles

Blood pressure monitoring with home monitors versus mercury sphygmomanometer

AL Rotch, JO Dean, MG Kendrach, SG Wright, and TW Woolley

OBJECTIVE: To determine the accuracy of three automatic monitors (arm, wrist, finger) for blood pressure measurement manufactured by Omron compared with a standard mercury sphygmomanometer. PRIMRY END POINT: Difference in the mean blood pressure readings from each monitor; the secondary end point was difference in pulse readings. DESIGN: A single-visit, crossover trial tested each device twice on the left arm of each participant; the average of the two readings was recorded. The pulse readings from each monitor were also recorded. ANOVA was used to compare mean blood pressure readings and pulse readings from each device. RESULTS: A total of 55 persons (mean age 53 y; 36 women) met inclusion criteria and completed the study. The mean systolic and diastolic readings obtained from the electronic arm unit were comparable to the mercury readings (124.4/78.02 vs. 129.45/77.87 mm Hg, respectively; p > 0.05 for both readings). The mean results obtained from the wrist and finger monitors differed significantly from those of the mercury readings (145.44/89.58 and 113.94/69.07 mm Hg, respectively; p < 0.05 for both monitors compared with control). No difference was measured in the mean pulse readings between the comparisons (p = 0.72). The absolute difference in systolic and diastolic blood pressure readings from control varied the least wih the arm monitor. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the mercury sphygmomanometer, the arm monitor was the most accurate in measuring blood pressure. The wrist and finger monitors resulted in statistically significant mean systolic and diastolic differences compared with the mercury sphygmomanometer.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
The Annals of PharmacotherapyHome page
L. M Lopez and J. R Taylor
Home Blood Pressure Monitoring: Point-of-Care Testing
Ann. Pharmacother., May 1, 2004; 38(5): 868 - 873.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




homecopy help contact us subscription past issues search current issue
Copyright © 2001 by Harvey Whitney Books Company.