Accuracy of the pressure scale of sphygmomanometers in clinical use within primary care
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is widely recommended that sphygmomanometers are maintained and calibrated regularly to ensure that the pressure scale remains accurate to within the European Standard specification of +/-3 mmHg. In primary care, however, such checks are reported to be only rarely performed. This paper describes a survey of the accuracy of the absolute static pressure scale of aneroid, mercury and automated sphygmomanometers in clinical use in primary care. METHODS: On-site measurements of sphygmomanometer pressure scale accuracy were carried out in 45 general practices within Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham. A total of 279 sphygmomanometers from these practices were included in the study. The device pressure scales were calibrated using an accurate electronic reference pressure sensor. RESULTS: The key finding of this study is that 17.9% (50 out of 279) of all surveyed devices gave errors exceeding the +/-3 mmHg threshold. Of these, 53.2% (33 out of 62) of aneroid devices were found to be reading in error by more than +/-3 mmHg compared with 7.8% (16 out of 217) of the combined population of mercury and automated devices. The difference between these groups is statistically significant (P=0.002). Significant differences in the performance of specific models of aneroid, mercury and automated devices were also identified. CONCLUSION: A service model for improving the accuracy of blood pressure monitoring in primary care needs to take into account the current proliferation of pressure scale errors in these devices, the lack of uptake of regular checks and the poor quality of some of the devices currently in use.
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 unlikely that electronic devices might be affected by errors because of loss of calibration.
“Thus, it is unlikely that electronic devices might be affected by errors because of loss of calibration [96].”
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].”
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Parati, G., Stergiou, G. S., Asmar, R., Bilo, G., de Leeuw, P., Imai, Y., Kario, K., Lurbe, E., Manolis, A., Mengden, T., et al. (2008) · Journal of Hypertension · doi:10.1097/hjh.0b013e328308da66 · Cited by 837 · see citing works
Self-citationKallioinen, N., Hill, A., Horswill, M. S., Ward, H. E., & Watson, M. O. (2017) · Journal of Hypertension · doi:10.1097/hjh.0000000000001197 · Cited by 357 · 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
Self-citationCollins, P., Rosano, G., Casey, C., Daly, C., Gambacciani, M., Hadji, P., Kaaja, R., Mikkola, T., Palacios, S., Preston, R., et al. (2007) · Climacteric · doi:10.1080/13697130701755213 · Cited by 67 · see citing works
Innovations in vital signs measurement for the detection of hypertension and shock in pregnancy
Vousden, N., Nathan, H. L., & Shennan, A. H. (2018) · Reproductive Health · doi:10.1186/s12978-018-0533-4 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Coleman, A. J., Steel, S. D., Ashworth, M., Vowler, S. L., & Shennan, A.
- Affiliations
- Guy's Hospital (GB)
- King's College London (GB)
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Coleman, Andrew J.
- Venue
- Blood Pressure Monitoring
- Published
- 2005-08
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 181-188
- ISSN
- 1359-5237 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2031559194
- Cited by
- 64
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 4 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 3.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Blood Pressure Monitoring (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Medical Laboratory Technology › Quality and Safety in Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
- Keywords
- sphygmomanometer calibration, blood pressure measurement accuracy, aneroid sphygmomanometer, mercury sphygmomanometer, automated blood pressure monitors, primary care, general practice
- MeSH terms
- Blood Pressure Determination, Calibration, Humans, Hypertension, Primary Health Care, Reproducibility of Results, Sphygmomanometers
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