ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2024
The impact of sphygmomanometer placement and cuff placement on blood pressure measurements.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 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.
- Skin-Inspired Healthcare Electronics.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Hypertension is the most significant global risk factor for mortality and morbidity, making standardized blood pressure measurement crucial. Objectives: To investigate whether the location of blood pressure monitors and the positioning of cuffs yield differing results in blood pressure measurements. Methods: Patients admitted to the Affiliated Hospital of Jiujiang College between 1 January 2022 and 30 June 2023 were enrolled in this study and randomly allocated into four groups. These groups were defined based on the positioning of monitoring equipment as follows: varied placements of cuffs on automatic blood pressure monitors, different heights for mercury column blood pressure monitors, varied heights for automatic blood pressure monitors, and different orientations for the cuff airbag tubes on electrocardiogram monitors. Blood pressure was measured and recorded for each group, followed by an analysis of the variations in readings across the different setups. Results: In the first cohort of 763 individuals, mean systolic blood pressure measured at the standard upper arm site was 128.8 ± 10.5 mmHg, compared to 125.3 ± 10.4 mmHg at the elbow fossa. The corresponding diastolic pressures were 79.2 ± 10.7 and 75.0 ± 10.6 mmHg, respectively. The difference in systolic pressure between these positions was significant at 3.48 ± 3.22 mmHg ( Conclusions: Blood pressure values measured at the elbow fossa position using an upper arm-type automatic sphygmomanometer were found to be lower than those measured at the upper arm position, with a difference of 3.48 mmHg for systolic and 4.23 mmHg for diastolic pressures. It is therefore essential to position the cuff correctly, specifically 2-3 cm above the elbow fossa, when utilizing an upper arm-type automatic sphygmomanometer for blood pressure monitoring. Conversely, the placement of the mercury column sphygmomanometer and the automated sphygmomanometer at varying heights had no significant effect on blood pressure readings. Similarly, the orientation of the electrocardiogram's cuffed balloon tube, whether facing upward or downward, did not influence blood pressure measurement outcomes.
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.