Trial reportEuropean journal of epidemiology2006
Difference in blood pressure readings with mercury and automated devices: Impact on hypertension prevalence estimates in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Trial report in European journal of epidemiology, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Comparison of mercury sphygmomanometry blood pressure readings with oscillometric and central blood pressure in predicting target organ damage in youth.Blood pressure monitoring · 2015Trial
- Blood pressure monitoring technique impacts hypertension treatment.Journal of general internal medicine · 2012Trial
- Review of investigational medical devices' clinical trials and regulations in Africa as a benchmark for new innovations.Frontiers in medical technology · 2022Review
- Blood pressure and levels of Fe, Ca, Mg, Zn, Cu, Na and K in the hair of young Bantu men from Tanzania.Biological trace element research · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectives(1) To compare blood pressure (BP) readings with an automated arm cuff oscillometric device (AutoBP) to readings with a mercury sphygmomanometer (HgBP) and (2) to evaluate the impact on the prevalence of hypertension (HBP) in a population-based survey.
methods(1) In a convenience sample ("Comparison Study"), we measured BP with both AutoBP (Visomat OZ2) and HgBP and we modeled BP difference (DeltaBP = HgBP-AutoBP) with multiple regression analysis. (2) Using DeltaBP, we calculated HgBP in a survey previously conducted in Dar es Salaam ("Population Survey") in which BP was measured with the automatic device Visomat OZ2 and we compared the prevalence of HBP (> or =140/90 mmHg or treatment).
resultsIn the Comparison Study (404 subjects aged 25-64), systolic/diastolic BP was higher by 4.4/4.7 mmHg (SE: 0.4/0.3) with HgBP than AutoBP. The prevalence of HBP was 42% with HgBP and 36% with AutoBP (relative difference of 14%). DeltaBP was associated with age, BP and arm circumference. In the Population Survey (9.254 subjects aged 25-64), the prevalence of HBP was 17% with calculated HgBP and 14% with AutoBP (relative difference of 20%).
conclusionA small systematic bias in BP readings between two different devices had large impact on hypertension prevalence estimates. This suggests that automated devices used in epidemiological studies should be validated with particular care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.