Determinants of the limits of agreement between the sphygmomanometer and the SpaceLabs 90207 device for blood pressure measurement in healthy volunteers and insulin-dependent diabetic patients
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the limits of agreement between the SpaceLabs 90207 oscillometric blood pressure measurement device and the sphygmomanometer for patients with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM) versus healthy control subjects. DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of six simultaneous blood pressure measurements in 106 IDDM patients aged 32.6+/-12.0 years (mean +/- SD) and 92 healthy control subjects aged 27.1+/-8.9 years with the SpaceLabs device and a sphygmomanometer. RESULTS: For both groups, overestimation of the systolic blood pressure occurred with the SpaceLabs device, being more severe for the IDDM group (1.7 mmHg more overestimation, P= 0.009). Mean arterial blood pressure was underestimated for the control group and overestimated for the IDDM group (2.7 mmHg underestimation and 0.8 mmHg overestimation, respectively). Diastolic blood pressures for both groups were underestimated by use of the SpaceLabs device, but less severely so for the IDDM group (4.2 mmHg, P< 0.0001 less underestimation). Multiple regression analysis revealed that these differences were mainly due to the presence of diabetes. Other determinants of these limits of agreement were age (for control group subjects) and duration of diabetes (for IDDM group patients). CONCLUSION: Limits of agreement between the SpaceLabs 90207 device and the sphygmomanometer differ between IDDM patients and healthy controls. These limits are influenced by the presence of diabetes, age and duration of diabetes. Available protocols for the evaluation of automated blood pressure measurement devices of the British Hypertension Society and the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation do not consider limits of agreement in subpopulations such as diabetic patients. Therefore, we recommend that tests for the limits of agreement of blood pressure measurement devices for subgroups should be added to these protocols.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
It is not possible to identify failure of the oscillometric method in individual patients based on clinical features only.
“it is not possible to identify failure of the oscillometric method in individual patients based on clinical features only [70,92–95].”
Cites
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
Martin Bland, J., & Altman, D. (1986) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8 · Cited by 47,965 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Pickering, T. G., Hall, J. E., Appel, L. J., Falkner, B. E., Graves, J., Hill, M. N., Jones, D. W., Kurtz, T., Sheps, S. G., & Roccella, E. J. (2005) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/01.cir.0000154900.76284.f6 · Cited by 3,985 · see citing works
Pickering, T. G., Hall, J. E., Appel, L. J., Falkner, B. E., Graves, J., Hill, M. N., Jones, D. W., Kurtz, T., Sheps, S. G., & Roccella, E. J. (2005) · Hypertension · doi:10.1161/01.hyp.0000150859.47929.8e · Cited by 2,051 · see citing works
Parati, G., Stergiou, G. S., Bilo, G., Kollias, A., Pengo, M., Ochoa, J. E., Agarwal, R., Asayama, K., Asmar, R., Burnier, M., et al. (2021) · Journal of Hypertension · doi:10.1097/hjh.0000000000002922 · Cited by 178 · see citing works
van Popele, N. M., Bos, W. J. W., de Beer, N. A. M., van der Kuip, D. A. M., Hofman, A., Grobbee, D. E., & Witteman, J. C. M. (2000) · Hypertension · doi:10.1161/01.hyp.36.4.484 · Cited by 170 · see citing works
Stergiou, G. S., Lourida, P., Tzamouranis, D., & Baibas, N. M. (2009) · Journal of Human Hypertension · doi:10.1038/jhh.2009.20 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
Amoore, J. N., Vacher, E., Murray, I. C., Mieke, S., King, S. T., Smith, F. E., & Murray, A. (2007) · Blood Pressure Monitoring · doi:10.1097/mbp.0b013e32826fb773 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
- Authors
- van Ittersum, F. J., Wijering, R. M. J., Lambert, J., Donker, A. J. M., & Stehouwer, C. D. A.
- Affiliations
- Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences (NL)
- ORCID
- Stehouwer, Coen D.A.
- Venue
- Journal of Hypertension
- Published
- 1998-08
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1125-1130
- ISSN
- 0263-6352 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2332118471
- Cited by
- 52
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 0.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Hypertension (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
- Keywords
- limits of agreement, automated blood pressure measurement, oscillometric blood pressure devices, sphygmomanometer, type 1 diabetes, blood pressure measurement accuracy, mean arterial pressure, diabetes duration, age effects
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Aerospace Medicine, Aged, Blood Pressure, Blood Pressure Determination, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Diastole, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Oscillometry, Retrospective Studies, Systole, Case-Control Studies
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
