Cited by 68Pregnancy and preeclampsia studiesBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesNon-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring

Accuracy of oscillometric blood pressure monitoring in pregnancy and pre‐eclampsia

Gupta, Manish, Shennan, Andrew H., Halligan, Aidan, Taylor, David J., de Swiet, Michael·1997·BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology

Abstract

Objective To assess the accuracy of the Omron HEM 705 CP oscillometric device for the measurement of blood pressure in pregnancy and pre‐eclampsia. Setting Two teaching hospitals. Participants Eighty‐five pregnant women with a wide range of blood pressures, and 43 women with pre‐eclampsia. Methods Evaluation was carried out according to the British Hypertension Society protocol, incorporating criteria of the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI). Results Mean differences (device minus observer) for systolic blood pressure were −0.9 mmHg (SD 10) in normal pregnancy, and −2 mmHg (SD 10) in the women with pre‐eclampsia. For diastolic blood pressure, Korotkoff phase V, the differences were −1.5 mmHg (SD 10), and −8 mmHg (SD 8) respectively; i.e. the device consistently under‐read the diastolic blood pressure in pre‐eclamptic women by a mean of 8 mmHg when compared with conventional sphygmomanometry. Korotkoff phase IV could not be accurately reproduced. According to the British Hypertension Society grading criteria, the device reached a ‘B’ grading in the 85 pregnant women. In pre‐eclampsia only a ‘C’ grade was reached for systolic blood pressure, and ‘D’ grade for diastolic blood pressure. Accuracy criteria stipulated by the AAMI were not met in any situation. Conclusion The Omron HEM 705 CP does not reach acceptable accuracy criteria for blood pressure measurement when compared with trained observers in women with pre‐eclampsia, as judged by the British Hypertension Society Protocol. It also failed to meet the AAMI criteria, although the methodology stipulated by the AAMI may not be applicable to a pregnancy population.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1997.tb11467.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gupta, M., Shennan, A. H., Halligan, A., Taylor, D. J., & de Swiet, M.
Affiliations
  • Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital (GB)
  • University of Leicester (GB)
Corresponding author
Shennan, Andrew H.
Venue
BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1997-03
Volume
104
Issue
3
Pages
350-355
ISSN
  • 0306-5456 (ISSN-L)
  • 1470-0328
  • 1471-0528
OpenAlex
W2019386856
Cited by
68
References
1
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 3 · 2012: 2
FWCI
4.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Pregnancy and preeclampsia studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Non-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring
Keywords
oscillometric blood pressure measurement, preeclampsia, pregnancy, blood pressure measurement, British Hypertension Society protocol
MeSH terms
Blood Pressure, Female, Humans, Pre-Eclampsia, Pregnancy, Sensitivity and Specificity, Observer Variation, Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory

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