4.0 Article

Validation of the A&D UM-101 professional hybrid device for office blood pressure measurement according to the International Protocol

期刊

BLOOD PRESSURE MONITORING
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 37-42

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MBP.0b013e3282c9acb0

关键词

accuracy; European Society of Hypertension; hybrid sphygmomanometer; International Protocol; office blood pressure; professional device; validation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective Assessment of the accuracy of the A&D UM-101 mercury-free professional device for auscultatory blood pressure (BP) measurement according to the European Society of Hypertension International Protocol. Further to auscultation, the device has a button to mark readings during deflation. Methods Fifteen adults were included in phase 1 and another 18 in phase 2. Simultaneous BP measurements were taken by two observers (connected mercury sphygmomanometers) four times, sequentially with three measurements using the tested device (two connected tested devices, one used with and the other without the mark button). Results In phase 1, the device produced 44/45/45 measurements within 5/10/15 mmHg, respectively, for systolic BP (SBP) and 39/43/45 for diastolic (DBP). In phase 2.1, 87/97/99 measurements within 5/10/15 mmHg, respectively, for SBP, and 91/97/99 for DBP (using the mark button 65/93/98 for SBP and 76/96/99 for DBP). In phase 2.2, 29 participants had at least two of their SBP differences within 5 mmHg and none had any differences within 5 mmHg, whereas 32 and none, respectively, for DBP (with mark 24/4 participants for SBP; 29/1 for DBP). Mean SBP differences were -1.5 +/- 3.5 mmHg and DBP -1.3 +/- 3.0 (with mark -3.6 +/- 4.2 and -2.8 +/- 3.7). The difference in SBP measured by the tested device with versus without using the mark button was 3.0 +/- 3.3 mmHg (P<0.001) and DBP 1.9 +/- 2.5 mmHg (P<0.001). Conclusion The device comfortably passed the validation protocol requirements. Using the mark button, the device, however, failed to meet the validation criteria. Therefore, it is recommended for clinical use without using the mark button.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据