Cited by 64Blood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesQuality and Safety in HealthcareClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control

Accuracy of the pressure scale of sphygmomanometers in clinical use within primary care

Coleman, Andrew J., Steel, Stephen D., Ashworth, Mark, Vowler, Sarah L., Shennan, Andrew·2005·Blood Pressure Monitoring

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

Crossref · 10.1097/01.mbp.0000168398.87167.c2

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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