ArticleAmerican journal of hypertension2024
Size Dimension Chart for Reference Cuff Validation and Limitations in Current Recommendations.
Article in American journal of hypertension, 2024. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInternational standards used for device validation protocols require that the reference cuff conforms to a width and length that is 37 to 50% and 75 to 100% of the arm circumference, respectively. However, there is no published chart of appropriate width and length dimensions across the range of arm circumferences. The objective of this report was to create a chart that could be used to guide reference cuff selection and compare recommended dimensions with two common cuff systems.
methodsArm circumferences, ranging from 22 to 52 cm were used to create a reference table for width and length requirements. Arm circumferences were grouped following the American Heart Association (AHA) recommendation for cuff sizes. Cuff dimension data was extracted from the website of a cuff system commonly used for validations (the Baum Corporation). Both the AHA recommendations and Baum sizes were compared with the recommended reference dimensions.
resultsThere were discrepancies in size naming conventions between the Baum Corporation and the AHA cuff systems. Moreover, there were gaps in both systems where the cuff would not be recommended for validation (31-32 cm for Baum and 30-31 cm for the AHA). Neither system had cuffs that could be used for the largest arm circumferences.
conclusionsThis chart highlights the need for more than one cuff system in validation studies and the critical need for cuffs that could be used for validation among larger arm circumferences.
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.