ArticleJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2014
Manual or automated sphygmomanometer? A historical cohort to quantify measurement bias in blood pressure recording.
Article in Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- A comparative study of automated blood pressure device and mercury-free LED blood pressure device using Lin's concordance correlation coefficient and other validity measures in Indian population.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2020Article
- The lost correlation between heat shock protein 70 (HSPA1A) and plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 in patients with type 2 diabetes and albuminuria.Cell stress & chaperones · 2016Article
- Validation of Omron HBP-1300 professional blood pressure monitor based on auscultation in children and adults.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The authors aimed to quantify end-digit and threshold biases in blood pressure (BP) measurement with manual and digital sphygmomanometers. In a 3-year follow-up, end-digit and threshold biases were investigated and a new index, called the deviation index, was used to quantify measurement bias. The distribution of systolic and diastolic BPs became close to normal after implementation of digital sphygmomanometers. The appearance of zero end digits decreased from 97% to 30% (P<.0001). The deviation index decreased from 97% to 20% (P<.0001). Mean systolic and diastolic BPs increased immediately after implementation of automated sphygmomanometers (124.22±0.83 vs 132.90±0.78 and 74.38±0.50 vs 80.43±0.51, respectively; P<.0001 for both) but showed a linear decreasing trend during follow-up (systolic -3.59 mm Hg per year; 95% confidence interval, -5.57 to -1.61 [P<.0001]; diastolic: -2.52 mm Hg per year; 95% confidence interval, -3.78 to -1.26 [P<.0001]). Threshold bias decreased from 12.94% to 6.68% (P<.0001). Replacing manual sphygmomanometers with digital devices decreased end-digit and threshold biases in BP measurement. The deviation index can be used to quantify the magnitude of measurement bias.
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.