Trial reportAmerican journal of pharmaceutical education2013
Assessing pharmacy students' ability to accurately measure blood pressure using a blood pressure simulator arm.
Trial report in American journal of pharmaceutical education, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
- Impact of Simulation Manikins to Train Pharmacy Students in Nasal, Throat, and Oral Fluid Swab Collection.Innovations in pharmacy · 2023Article
- Relation of clinical context to accuracy of simulator-based blood pressure measurement by first-year medical students.International journal of medical education · 2018Article
- Blood pressure measurement techniques: Assessing performance in outpatient settings of a tertiary-level hospital in Rwanda.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2018Article
- Medical students and measuring blood pressure: Results from the American Medical Association Blood Pressure Check Challenge.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2017Article
- Setting priorities for physical examination in pharmacy education: A Delphi study.Canadian pharmacists journal : CPJ = Revue des pharmaciens du Canada : RPCArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare student accuracy in measuring normal and high blood pressures using a simulator arm.
methodsIn this prospective, single-blind, study involving third-year pharmacy students, simulator arms were programmed with prespecified normal and high blood pressures. Students measured preset normal and high diastolic and systolic blood pressure using a crossover design.
resultsOne hundred sixteen students completed both blood pressure measurements. There was a significant difference between the accuracy of high systolic blood pressure (HSBP) measurement and normal systolic blood pressure (NSBP) measurement (mean HSBP difference 8.4 ± 10.9 mmHg vs NSBP 3.6 ± 6.4 mmHg; p<0.001). However, there was no difference between the accuracy of high diastolic blood pressure (HDBP) measurement and normal diastolic blood pressure (NDBP) measurement (mean HDBP difference 6.8 ± 9.6 mmHg vs. mean NDBP difference 4.6 ± 4.5 mmHg; p=0.089).
conclusionsPharmacy students may need additional instruction and experience with taking high blood pressure measurements to ensure they are able to accurately assess this important vital sign.
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.