ArticleJournal of human hypertension2022
Brazilian health professionals' perceptions and knowledge about automated blood pressure monitors.
Article in Journal of human hypertension, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Obtaining accurate blood pressure readings is vital. However, students and health professionals do not always receive adequate training on blood pressure measurement, especially regarding new technologies, leading to insufficient knowledge. Therefore, the aim of this study is to analyze Brazilian health professionals' perceptions and knowledge about automated blood pressure monitors. This cross-sectional study involved 1734 Brazilian nurses, nursing technicians, and doctors who reported having some experience of using automated monitors. Perceptions about differences between readings obtained through the auscultatory and oscillometric methods, influence of small differences in clinical decision-making, confidence in automated monitors, and knowledge about contraindications for the use of these devices were assessed. Most medical and nursing professionals considered differences of up to 5 mmHg (40.94%) between auscultatory and oscillometric measurements acceptable. Of these, 69.02% reported that even small differences can influence clinical decisions. Confidence in readings obtained using automated blood pressure monitors was reported by 53.92%. Among the motivations for making these devices available in health services, the most frequent was the saving of time (48.85%) and the least frequent, the perception that the use of this technology requires less training (9.40%). Arrhythmia was the most recognized contraindication for the use of automated monitors (28.49%), followed by obesity (28.14%) and blood pressure readings above 160 × 100 mmHg. In conclusion, there is a lack of knowledge about the functionalities and indications of blood pressure monitors and a low tolerance for measurements different from those obtained through manual mercury sphygmomanometers or aneroids.
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.