ArticleThe European journal of general practice2013
Measuring accuracy of sphygmomanometers in the medical practices of Swiss primary care physicians.
Article in The European journal of general practice, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparison of automated clinical and research blood pressure measurements: Implications for clinical practice and trial design.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2018Trial
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
objectiveArterial hypertension has a high prevalence in most countries. Blood pressure measurements are performed frequently by primary care physicians. Recommendations from different societies emphasise the importance of measuring blood pressure with well maintained and calibrated instruments only. Since appropriate quality control measures are lacking the following survey was conducted in the medical practices of Swiss primary care physicians.
methodsThis is a cross-sectional survey with Swiss primary care physicians. Nine hundred and seventy-five sphygmomanometers used in the daily practice of medicine were compared and calibrated against a certified calibrator. The magnitude of the measuring error before and after calibration was determined.
resultsThe proportion of the instruments that measured within the required tolerance of ± 3 mmHg over all measuring ranges was 81.4%. The average maintenance time was 5.6 years (± 3.8), and 97% (n = 353) of these instruments had not been maintained for two years (i.e. the recommended maintenance interval) or more. Two years after maintenance the number of devices with measurement errors of more than ± 3 mmHg increased significantly.
conclusionIn Swiss primary care practices, the majority of upper arm and wrist sphygmomanometers measured blood pressure within a tolerance of ± 3 mmHg despite low adherence to the recommended maintenance interval. Two years after maintenance the number of sphygmomanometers with measurement errors increased significantly.
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.