ArticleJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2024
Comparisons of an automated oscillometric device with a hybrid manual auscultatory device for the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.
Article in Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preference, Awareness, and Use of Sphygmomanometers in the Mercury-Free Era: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Physicians in Korea.Journal of Korean medical science · 2026Article
- Comparisons of an automated oscillometric device with a hybrid manual auscultatory device for the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study evaluated an oscillometric device (OD), Microlife WatchBP Office AFIB, and a hybrid manual auscultatory device (AD), Greenlight 300TM, to determine a suitable blood pressure (BP) measurement device for the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey in a mercury-free context. Adhering to the 2018 Universal Standard's suggested consensus, the study involved 800 subjects (mean age 51.2 ± 17.5 years; 44.3% male), who underwent triplicate BP measurements following 5 min of rest in a randomized order (OD-first: 398 participants; AD-first: 402 participants). BP difference was calculated as OD value minus AD value, with results stratified by measurement sequence. The overall BP difference and tolerable error probability were -1.1 ± 6.5/-2.6 ± 4.9 mmHg and 89.2%/92.5% for systolic/diastolic BP (SBP/DBP), respectively. Lin's concordance correlation coefficient was 0.907/0.844 for SBP/DBP (OD-first/AD-first: 0.925/0.892 for SBP, 0.842/0.845 for DBP). The overall agreement for hypertension (BP ≥ 140 and/or 90 mmHg) was 0.71 (p < 0.0001), and the OD underestimated the overall hypertension prevalence by 5.1%. Analysis of the AD-first data revealed a lower level of agreement compared to the OD-first data; however, the observed blood pressure difference adhered to Criterion 1 of the 2018 Universal Standard. Microlife met the Criterion 1 of 2018 Universal Standard but underestimated the prevalence of hypertension. The BP discrepancy increased with higher BP levels, male sex, and smaller AC. With increasing age, the discrepancy decreased for SBP and increased for DBP.
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.