4.0 Article

Validation of the Omron HEM-907 device for blood pressure measurement

Journal

BLOOD PRESSURE MONITORING
Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 237-241

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00126097-200208000-00006

Keywords

Omron HEM-907; blood pressure measuring device; validation; international protocol

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background The aim of this study was to validate the Omron HEM-907 blood pressure (BP) measuring device according to the international validation protocol. Design The international validation protocol is divided into two phases: the first phase is performed on 15 selected subjects and if the device passes this phase, 18 more subjects are selected making a total number of 33 subjects on which the final validation is performed. Methods For each subject, BP measurements were performed simultaneously by two trained observers using mercury sphygmomanometers alternately with the Omron HEM-907 device. In all, 99 measurements were obtained for comparison. The difference between the BP value given by the device and that obtained by the two observers (mean of the two observers) was calculated for each measure. Results The difference between the two observers was -1 +/- 2 mmHg for the systolic BP (SBP) and for the diastolic BP (DBP). The Omron HEM-907 passed the first phase of the validation process. For the second phase, the average differences between the device and mercury sphygmomanometer readings were -1 +/- 7 and -5 +/- 6 mmHg for SBP and DBP respectively. Readings for the HEM-907 device differed by less than 5 mmHg for 61 of the systolic readings and 52 of the diastolic readings; by less than 10 mmHg for 85 of the systolic readings and 85 of the diastolic readings; and by less than 15 mmHg for 94 of the systolic readings and 96 of the diastolic readings. Conclusions The Omron,HEM-907 device passes the two phases of the international validation protocol. (C) 2002 Lippincott Williams Wilkins.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available