Automatic blood pressure measurement: the oscillometric waveform shape is a potential contributor to differences between oscillometric and auscultatory pressure measurements
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the differences between oscillometric and auscultatory measurements. METHOD: From a simulator evaluation of a non-invasive blood pressure (NIBP) device regenerating 242 oscillometric blood pressure waveforms from 124 subjects, 10 waveforms were selected based on the differences between the NIBP (oscillometric) and auscultatory pressure measurements. Two waveforms were selected for each of five criteria: systolic over and underestimation; diastolic over and underestimation; and close agreement for both systolic and diastolic pressures. The 10 waveforms were presented to seven different devices and the oscillometric-auscultatory pressure differences were compared between devices and with the oscillometric waveform shapes. RESULTS: Consistent patterns of waveform-dependent over and underestimation of systolic and diastolic pressures were shown for all seven devices. The mean and standard deviation, for all devices, of oscillometric-auscultatory pressure differences were: for the systolic overestimated waveforms, 36 +/- 28/-6 +/- 3 and 23 +/- 2/-1 +/- 3 mmHg (systolic/diastolic differences); for systolic underestimated waveforms, -21 +/- 5/-4 +/- 3 and -11 +/- 4/-3 +/- 3 mmHg; for diastolic overestimated waveforms, 3 +/- 4/12 +/- 5 and 17 +/- 6/10 +/- 2 mmHg; for diastolic underestimated waveforms, 1 +/- 4/-22 +/- 4 and -9 +/- 6/-29 +/- 4 mmHg; and for the two waveforms with good agreement, 0 +/- 6/0 +/- 3 and -2 +/- 4/-4 +/- 3 mmHg. Waveforms for which devices showed good oscillometric and auscultatory agreement had smooth envelopes with clearly defined peaks, compared with the broader plateau and complex shapes of those waveforms for which devices over or underestimated pressures. CONCLUSION: By increasing the understanding of the characteristics and limitations of the oscillometric method and the effects of waveform shape on pressure measurements, simulator evaluation should lead to improvements in NIBP devices.
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?
Different methods to construct the oscillometric waveform envelope and individual differences in envelope shape can lead to different estimated BP values.
“Furthermore, different methods used to construct the oscillometric waveform envelope, as well as individual differences in the shape of the waveform envelope, can lead to different estimated BP values [55, 56].”
From Automated 'oscillometric' blood pressure measuring devices: how they work and what they measure (2022) · cites this paper as [56]
Cites
Characterization of the oscillometric method for measuring indirect blood pressure
Geddes, L. A., Voelz, M., Combs, C., Reiner, D., & Babbs, C. F. (1982) · Annals of Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1007/bf02367308 · Cited by 340 · 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
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Automated 'oscillometric' blood pressure measuring devices: how they work and what they measure
Sharman, J. E., Tan, I., Stergiou, G. S., Lombardi, C., Saladini, F., Butlin, M., Padwal, R., Asayama, K., Avolio, A., Brady, T. M., et al. (2022) · Journal of Human Hypertension · doi:10.1038/s41371-022-00693-x · Cited by 84 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Amoore, J. N., Lemesre, Y., Murray, I. C., Mieke, S., King, S. T., Smith, F. E., & Murray, A.
- Affiliations
- Edinburgh Royal Infirmary (GB)
- Université de la Méditerranée Aix-Marseille II (FR)
- University of Edinburgh (GB)
- Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (DE)
- Freeman Hospital (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Amoore, John N
- Venue
- Journal of Hypertension
- Published
- 2008-01
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 35-43
- ISSN
- 0263-6352 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2021784551
- Cited by
- 56
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 2.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Hypertension (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Non-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Hemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
- Keywords
- oscillometric blood pressure measurement, auscultatory blood pressure measurement, blood pressure measurement agreement, simulator evaluation, waveform envelope
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Auscultation, Blood Pressure, Blood Pressure Determination, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Oscillometry, Software, Reproducibility of Results, Blood Pressure Monitors
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