There is a large market for blood pressure measuring devices not only in clinical medicine but also among the public where the demand for self measurement of blood pressure is growing rapidly. For consumers, whether medical or lay, accuracy should be of prime importance when selecting a device to measure blood pressure. However, most devices have not been evaluated for accuracy independently using the two most widely used protocols: the British Hypertension Society (BHS) protocol and the standard set by the US Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI).1,2 The Working Group on Blood Pressure Monitoring of the European Society of Hypertension has decided to review blood pressure measuring devices regularly to guide purchasers.3 For this first report devices for which there is published evidence of independent validation using these protocols have been surveyed. Because most blood pressure devices have not been independently validated, only a fraction of the many devices available have been surveyed. Devices that have been validated recently for which results have not yet been published were not included, but this shortcoming should be addressed in future.
Summary points
Two manual sphygmomanometers have been validated, one is recommended
Five devices for clinical use in hospitals have been validated, two are recommended
23 devices for self measurement of blood pressure have been validated, five are recommended
24 devices for ambulatory measurement of blood pressure have been validated, 16 are recommended
Validations and recommendations will be updated on the BMJ 's website
Methods
Validation standards
In 1987, the American Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation published a standard for sphygmomanometers which included a protocol for evaluating the accuracy of devices.4 In 1990 a protocol was devised by the British Hypertension Society.5 Both protocols have since been revised.1,2 Since the two protocols can be reconciled the joint criteria are applied in most validation studies.6 The criteria for fulfilling the BHS protocol are that devices must achieve at least grade B (where A denotes greatest agreement with mercury standard and D denotes least agreement) for systolic and for diastolic pressures (table 1)1; the criteria for fulfilling the AAMI protocol are that the test device must not differ from the mercury standard by a mean difference >5 mm Hg or a standard deviation >8 mm Hg.2
Table 1.
Grading criteria used by the British Society of Hypertension.1 Grades represent the cumulative percentage of readings falling within 5 mm Hg, 10 mm Hg, and 15 mm Hg of the mercury standard. All three percentages must be greater than or equal to the values shown for a specific grade to be awarded. Values are mm Hg
| Absolute difference between standard and test device (%)
|
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Grade | ⩽5 | ⩽10 | ⩽15 |
| A | 60 | 85 | 95 |
| B | 50 | 75 | 90 |
| C | 40 | 65 | 85 |
| D | Worse than C | ||
Criteria for recommendation
The following criteria have been used to designate devices according to accuracy. A device is classed as recommended if it fulfils the AAMI criteria for both systolic and diastolic pressures (denoted as passed) and received a grade of A or B under the BHS protocol for both systolic and diastolic blood pressures. A device is not recommended if it fails the AAMI criteria for either systolic or diastolic pressure and achieves a grade of C or D for either systolic or diastolic pressure under the BHS protocol. A questionable recommendation is made when there is doubt about the strength of evidence. This may occur when a device fulfils the criteria of one protocol but not the other, and it may be best not to recommend the device for clinical use until a confirmatory study has been performed; when the validation results were presented only in an abstract without sufficient detail to appraise the methodology, and it may be best to withhold an opinion until the full results have been published or at least provided to a potential purchaser by the manufacturer; when the conditions of the protocols have not been fully adhered to (listed as a protocol violation in our scheme); or when a device fulfils the AAMI criteria for intra-arterial validation (the BHS protocol does not advocate validation using direct intra-arterial measurement1), but it may be best to await a validation against indirect blood pressure measurement before recommending the device for general clinical use.
Identification of devices
This review was based on two previous surveys (which should be consulted for early validation studies that are not reproduced in this review),7,8 and computerised search programs were used to identify validation studies in the literature published up to December 1999. Blood pressure measuring devices were divided into two broad categories: manual sphygmomanometers, which include mercury and anaeroid devices; and automated sphygmomanometers, which include devices for clinical use in hospitals, for self measurement of blood pressure, for ambulatory blood pressure measurement, and for measuring blood pressure in community settings. (Information on manufacturers appears on the BMJ 's website.)
Results
Manual sphygmomanometers
These devices are listed in table 2 .9–12 One model of the many mercury sphygmomanometers available, the PyMah (PyMah Corporation, Flemington, NJ), has been validated according to both protocols and is recommended.9 Because mercury sphygmomanometers are generally of a simple basic design with standard components, it is probably reasonable to assume that most would be of similar accuracy. The standard anaeroid sphygmomanometer has only been formally validated according to the calibration procedure of the BHS protocol,12 and the results support reservations about anaeroid devices because they are susceptible to becoming inaccurate without this being apparent to the user.13
Table 2.
Manual blood pressure measuring devices validated using the protocols of the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation and the British Hypertension Society
| Device | Protocol
|
Use | Recommendation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AAMI* | BHS (systolic/ diastolic)† | |||
| PyMah mercury9 | Passed | A/A | At rest | Recommended |
| Hawksley RZS (US model)10, 11 | Failed | B/D | At rest | Not recommended |
| Hawksley RZS (UK model) 10, 11 | Failed | C/D | At rest | Not recommended |
| Aneroid device12 | NA | Failed | At rest; only abstract available | Questionable recommendation |
AAMI=Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation; BHS=British Hypertension Society; RZS=random zero sphygmomanometer; NA=not applied.
To meet AAMI criteria the mean difference between the device and the mercury standard must be ⩽5 mm Hg or the standard deviation must be ⩽8 mm Hg.
To meet BHS criteria devices must achieve a grade of at least B for both systolic and diastolic measurements. Grade A denotes greatest agreement with mercury standard and D denotes least agreement.
Automated sphygmomanometers
Devices for use in hospitals
Devices for clinical use in hospitals are listed in table 3.14–18
Table 3.
Automated blood pressure measuring devices for clinical use in hospitals validated using the protocols of the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation and the British Hypertension Society. Devices were validated in oscillometric mode unless otherwise indicated
| Device | Protocol
|
Use | Recommendation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AAMI* | BHS (systolic/ diastolic)† | |||
| Datascope Accutorr Plus17 | Passed | A/A | At rest | Recommended |
| CAS Model 901018 | Passed | NA | At rest in adults | Recommended |
| In neonates | Recommended | |||
| Tensionic Mod EPS 11218 | Passed | B/A | At rest; only abstract available | Questionable recommendation |
| Colin Pilot 920019 (tonometric mode) | Passed | NA | At rest; intra-arterial | Questionable recommendation |
| Dinamap 810020, 21 | Failed | B/D | At rest | Not recommended |
AAMI=Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation; BHS=British Hypertension Society; NA=not applied.
To meet AAMI criteria the mean difference between the device and the mercury standard must be ⩽5 mm Hg or the standard deviation must be ⩽8 mm Hg.
To meet BHS criteria devices must achieve a grade of at least B for both systolic and diastolic measurements. Grade A denotes greatest agreement with mercury standard and D denotes least agreement.
Devices for self measurement of blood pressure
There are a large number of automated devices for self measurement of blood pressure, virtually all of which use the oscillometric technique. Formerly these devices used automated inflation and deflation of a cuff applied to the upper arm over the brachial artery. Recently this technique has been used to measure blood pressure over the radial artery at the wrist, but since these devices become inaccurate if the arm is not kept at heart level during measurement, the working group is reluctant to recommend them regardless of accuracy.19 Devices that measure blood pressure by occluding a digital artery in the finger are also available, but because the problem of limb position is even more critical and there is the additional problem of peripheral vasoconstriction affecting accuracy, this technique is no longer recommended. These devices have not been considered in this review.19
Automated devices for upper arm measurement are shown in table 4.9,20–29 Automated devices for wrist measurement are listed in table 5.29–32 These have been validated against brachial arterial measurements.
Table 4.
Automated blood pressure measuring devices for self measurement at the upper arm validated using the protocols of the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation and the British Hypertension Society. For the first seven devices grading criteria had not been established although the British protocol was in use.13 Devices were validated in oscillometric mode unless otherwise indicated
| Device | Protocol
|
Use | Recommendation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AAMI* | BHS (systolic/ diastolic)† | |||
| Omron HEM-400C9 | Failed | Failed | At rest | Not recommended |
| Philips HP5308 (auscultatory mode)9 | Failed | Failed | At rest | Not recommended |
| Philips HP5306/B9 | Failed | Failed | At rest | Not recommended |
| Healthcheck CX-5 0600209 | Failed | Failed | At rest | Not recommended |
| Nissei analogue monitor (auscultatory mode)9 | Failed | Failed | At rest | Not recommended |
| Systema Dr MI-1509 | Failed | Failed | At rest | Not recommended |
| Fortec Dr MI-1009 | Failed | Failed | At rest | Not recommended |
| Philips HP533220 | Failed | C/A | At rest | Not recommended |
| Nissei DS-17520 | Failed | D/A | At rest | Not recommended |
| Omron HEM-705CP20 | Passed | B/A | At rest | Recommended |
| Omron HEM-70621 | Passed | B/C | At rest | Not recommended |
| Omron HEM-403C22 | Failed | C/C | Protocol violation | Not recommended |
| Omron HEM-703CP23 | Passed | NA | Intra-arterial | Questionable recommendation |
| Omron M424 | Passed | A/A | Only abstract available; details missing | Questionable recommendation |
| Omron MX224 | Passed | A/A | Only abstract available; details missing | Questionable recommendation |
| Omron HEM-722C25 | NA | A/A | Protocol violation | Questionable recommendation |
| Omron HEM-722C26 | Passed | A/A | At rest in elderly people | Recommended |
| Omron HEM-735C26 | Passed | B/A | At rest in elderly people | Recommended |
| Omron HEM-713C27 | Passed | B/B | At rest | Recommended |
| Omron HEM-737 Intellisense28 | Passed | B/B | At rest | Recommended |
| Visomat OZ229 | Passed | C/B | At rest | Not recommended |
AAMI=Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation; BHS=British Hypertension Society; NA=not applied.
To meet AAMI criteria the mean difference between the device and the mercury standard must be ⩽5 mm Hg or the standard deviation must be ⩽8 mm Hg.
To meet BHS criteria devices must achieve a grade of at least B for both systolic and diastolic measurements. Grade A denotes greatest agreement with mercury standard and D denotes least agreement.
Table 5.
Automated blood pressure measuring devices for self measurement at the wrist validated using the protocols of the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation and the British Hypertension Society
| Device | Protocol
|
Use | Recommendation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AAMI* | BHS (systolic/ diastolic)† | |||
| Omron R330 | NA | NA | Intra-arterial comparison | Questionable recommendation |
| Omron R329 | Failed | D/D | At rest | Not recommended |
| Boso-Mediwatch31 | NA | C/C | At rest; protocol violation | Not recommended |
| Omron Rx32 | Failed | B/B | At rest; only abstract available | Questionable recommendation |
AAMI=Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation; BHS=British Hypertension Society; NA=not applied.
To meet AAMI criteria the mean difference between the device and the mercury standard must be ⩽5 mm Hg or the standard deviation must be ⩽8 mm Hg.
To meet BHS criteria devices must achieve a grade of at least B for both systolic and diastolic measurements. Grade A denotes greatest agreement with mercury standard and D denotes least agreement.
Devices for ambulatory measurement of blood pressure
There are two techniques for measuring ambulatory blood pressure: the commonly used method of intermittent measurement over 24 hours and the developing method of continuous waveform analysis.
Intermittent measurement—Devices dependent on intermittent measurement are listed in table 6.33–68 Many of these devices have been validated for use in specific groups, such as elderly people and pregnant women, and in differing circumstances, such as during exercise and in different postures. Validating devices for use in ambulatory conditions presents many methodological difficulties, and some evidence suggests that inaccuracies found during static conditions may be amplified in ambulatory conditions.69
Table 6.
Ambulatory blood pressure measuring devices validated using the protocols of the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation and the British Hypertension Society
| Device | Mode | Protocol
|
Use | Recommendation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AAMI* | BHS (systolic/ diastolic)† | ||||
| Accutracker II (30/23)33 | Auscultatory | Passed | A/C | At rest | Not recommended |
| CH-DRUCK34 | Auscultatory | Passed | A/A | At rest | Recommended |
| Daypress 50035 | Oscillometric | Passed | A/B | At rest | Recommended |
| DIASYS 20036 | Auscultatory | Passed | C/C | At rest | Not recommended |
| DIASYS Integra37 | Auscultatory | Passed | B/A | At rest | Recommended |
| Oscillometric | Passed | B/B | At rest | Recommended | |
| ES-H53138 | Auscultatory | Passed | A/A | At rest | Recommended |
| Oscillometric | Passed | B/B | At rest | Recommended | |
| Medilog ABP39 | Auscultatory | Passed | NA | At rest | Questionable recommendation |
| Meditech ABPM-0440 | Oscillometric | Passed | B/B | At rest | Recommended |
| Nissei DS-24041 | Oscillometric | Passed | B/A | Only abstract available; details missing | Questionable recommendation |
| OSCILL-IT42 | Oscillometric | Passed | C/B | At rest | Not recommended |
| Pressurometer IV43 | Auscultatory | Failed | C/D | At rest | Not recommended |
| Profilomat44 | Auscultatory | Passed | B/A | At rest | Recommended |
| Profilomat45 | Auscultatory | Passed | B/C | In pregnancy | Not recommended |
| Profilomat II46 | Oscillometric | Failed | C/B | At rest | Not recommended |
| QuietTrak 47 | Auscultatory | Passed | B/B | At rest | Recommended |
| QuietTrak48 | Auscultatory | Passed | B/B | At rest; only abstract | Questionable recommendation |
| QuietTrak49 | Auscultatory | Failed | D/D | In pre-eclampsia | Not recommended |
| QuietTrak50 | Auscultatory | Failed | B/B | In pregnancy | Not recommended |
| QuietTrak51 | Auscultatory | Passed | A/A | At rest | Recommended |
| A/A | During exercise | Recommended | |||
| A/A | Different postures | Recommended | |||
| A/A | In elderly people | Recommended | |||
| A/A | In children | Recommended | |||
| A/A | In pregnancy | Recommended | |||
| Save 33, Model 252 | Oscillometric | Passed | B/B | At rest | Recommended |
| Schiller BR-10253 | Auscultatory | Passed | B/B | At rest | Recommended |
| Oscillometric | Failed | D/B | At rest | Not recommended | |
| SpaceLabs 9020254 | Oscillometric | Passed | B/B | At rest | Recommended |
| SpaceLabs 9020755 | Oscillometric | Passed | B/B | At rest | Recommended |
| SpaceLabs 9020756 | Oscillometric | Passed | A/C | In pregnancy | Not recommended |
| SpaceLabs 9020757 | Oscillometric | Passed | B/B | In pregnancy | Recommended |
| SpaceLabs 9020745 | Oscillometric | Passed | B/C | In pregnancy | Not recommended |
| SpaceLabs 9020749 | Oscillometric | Failed | D/D | In pre-eclampsia | Not recommended |
| SpaceLabs 9020758 | Oscillometric | Passed | C/C | In pre-eclampsia | Not recommended |
| SpaceLabs 9020759 | Oscillometric | SBP Pass | C | In children | Not recommended |
| SpaceLabs 9020759 | DBP Fail | D | In children | Not recommended | |
| SpaceLabs 9020760 | Oscillometric | Passed | B/A | Elderly people standing and sitting (SBP ⩽160 mmHg) | Recommended |
| SpaceLabs 9020760 | Oscillometric | Passed | D/A | Elderly people supine; tested at all pressures | Not recommended |
| SpaceLabs 9020761 | Oscillometric | Passed | C/B | During haemodialysis | Not recommended |
| SpaceLabs 9021762 | Oscillometric | Passed | A/A | At rest | Recommended |
| TM-2420/TM-202063 | Oscillometric | Failed | D/D | At rest | Not recommended |
| TM-2420 Model 664 | Oscillometric | Passed | B/B | At rest | Recommended |
| TM-2420 Model 765 | Oscillometric | Passed | B/B | At rest | Recommended |
| TM-242166 | Oscillometric | Passed | B/A | At rest | Recommended |
| TM-242167 | Oscillometric | NA | A/B | In children aged 7-8 years sitting | Questionable recommendation |
| A/B | In children of all ages sitting | Questionable recommendation | |||
| TM-242167 | Auscultatory | NA | C/C | In children in different postures | Not recommended |
| Takeda 243068 | Oscillometric | Passed | A/A | At rest | Recommended |
AAMI=Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation; BHS=British Hypertension Society; NA=not applied; SBP=systolic blood pressure; DBP=diastolic blood pressure.
To meet AAMI criteria the mean difference between the device and the mercury standard must be ⩽5 mm Hg or the standard deviation must be ⩽8 mm Hg.
To meet BHS criteria devices must achieve a grade of at least B for both systolic and diastolic measurements. Grade A denotes greatest agreement with mercury standard and D denotes least agreement.
Devices for continuous non-invasive blood pressure monitoring of a finger—The Portapres (TNO, Amsterdam), a portable recorder for 24 hour ambulatory monitoring, can provide beat to beat monitoring which gives waveform measurements similar to intra-arterial recordings. However, the technique is subject to various inaccuracies, which the use of correction factors and digital filters in the latest model may remove; this model is awaiting formal validation.70,71
Devices for measuring blood pressure in a community setting
There is little information available on the accuracy of automated devices that are installed in public retail areas—such as pharmacies, supermarkets, health clinics, and companies in a variety of industries—which permit the public to measure blood pressure without charge in an unsupervised, crowded setting with high ambient noise. Evaluations of one such device, the Vita Stat 90550 (Spacelabs Medical, Redmond, WA), have had conflicting results.72,73
Discussion
Manufacturers of blood pressure measuring devices use innovative technology to provide an array of systems that can analyse, store, and display features of a haemodynamic variable in ways that would have been beyond the dreams of the pioneers of the technique. Although the selection of a blood pressure measuring device may be influenced by many factors, a fundamental requirement must be that it gives accurate measurements; too often accuracy has been sacrificed for technological ingenuity.
The evidence from validation studies is accumulating, and devices are being scrutinised more critically; this has been the case with ambulatory devices used in specific populations, such as in children, elderly people, and pregnant women. However, the evidence is not always clear cut. There may have been protocol violations; the data published may have been inadequate, such as sometimes occurs when only abstracts have been published; and there may be disagreement between validation studies of the same device. None the less certain recommendations can be made to assist potential purchasers.
In interpreting the recommendations made by this survey the following factors should be considered. A device fulfilling the AAMI criteria and graded A or B for both systolic and diastolic pressure under the BHS protocol has been recommended on grounds of accuracy without equivocation; one that fails the AAMI protocol for either systolic or diastolic pressure and has a grade of C or D for either systolic or diastolic pressure under the BHS protocol cannot be recommended on the grounds of accuracy. Devices are given a questionable recommendation if there is an element of doubt in interpreting the results of a validation study. One circumstance that a purchaser should also consider, but for which we cannot make a recommendation, is the occasional conflict that arises when a device fulfils the criteria of the protocols when validated at one centre but not another. When this occurs the details of the methodology may need to be scrutinised to determine if differences in the selection of participants, for example, might explain the conflict; it may be best to await the results of a confirmatory study before deciding whether the device is accurate.
Only a fraction of the devices available worldwide have been independently validated. This is especially true of devices used for self measurement . In 1994, Ng and Small surveyed 423 automated devices, of which 161 were designed for self measurement.74 Since then the number of devices available for self measurement has increased greatly but comparatively few have been validated. The situation is even worse for automated devices designed for use in specialised areas of hospitals, such as operating theatres and intensive care units, where accuracy should be a priority. Only five of the hundreds of devices available have been validated using the two protocols, of which only two met the criteria for recommendation in this review.8,75 The much used anaeroid sphygmomanometer has only recently been independently evaluated.12 However, because these devices become inaccurate with use without this inaccuracy being apparent to the user, it is also necessary to validate them after they have been used for some time.13
A serious dilemma is how to influence manufacturers to modify devices that have been shown to be inaccurate. The Dinamap Portable Monitor model 8100 (Critikon, Tampa, FL) is an example of this: despite a number of reports of inaccuracy18,76 it is one of the most popular automated devices used in clinical practice and hypertension research. It seems that purchasers and users of expensive devices for blood pressure measurement in specialised hospital areas are prepared to accept the word of manufacturers with regard to their accuracy and performance and to ignore warnings from the scientific literature as to their shortcomings.
Again, the situation is worse for self measurement devices. Despite the poor accuracy record of devices that measure blood pressure at the wrist and the serious misgivings voiced by clinicians about these devices,19 their popularity is growing. In Germany, for example, 1.2 million self measurement devices are sold annually.30
The European Union and international organisations of specialists in hypertension have unanimously recommended that all devices for measuring blood pressure should be independently validated.19,77–82 The reality is, however, that most devices are not validated independently. This may be partly due to the expense of conducting validation studies using complex protocols.1,2 Recently, the European Society of Hypertension Working Party on Blood Pressure Monitoring agreed proposals to simplify the BHS protocol without compromising the integrity of the procedures, and an international protocol for validation is being drafted.83 This will help manufacturers to market devices worldwide, expedite validation procedures, reduce the expense of performing studies, and permit more centres to undertake validation procedures; all of which would enable manufacturers to have all devices validated independently before they are marketed. Early publication of validation studies might further encourage manufacturers to have their devices evaluated, and the readiness of Blood Pressure Monitoring to act as a repository of peer reviewed studies is welcomed. The internet might provide a means of continuously updating information on blood pressure measuring devices.
Supplementary Material
Footnotes
Funding: None.
Competing interests: EO'B is director of the blood pressure unit at Beaumont Hospital, which has been contracted by manufacturers from time to time to conduct validation studies of blood pressure measurement devices; the results of these studies have been published. EO'B has advised AccuSphyg, which is developing a non-mercury automated device for use in hospitals, and he holds a minority financial interest in the company.
Additional information about manufacturers and members of the working group appear on the BMJ's website
Members of the working group are Roland Asmar, Andrew Coats, Denis L Clement, Peter de Leeuw, Robert Fagard, Yutaka Imai, Jean-Michel Mallion, Giuseppe Mancia, Thomas Mengden, Martin Myers, Eoin O'Brien, Paul Padfield, Gianfranco Parati, Paolo Palatini, Thomas G Pickering, Josep Redon, Jan Staessen, Peter Trenkwalder, Gert van Montfrans, Paolo Verdecchia, Bernard Waeber, William White
References
- 1.O'Brien E, Petrie J, Littler WA, de Swiet M, Padfield PL, Altman D, et al. The British Hypertension Society protocol for the evaluation of blood pressure measuring devices. J Hypertens. 1993;11(suppl 2):S43–S63. doi: 10.1097/00004872-199306000-00013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation. American national standard. Electronic or automated sphygmomanometers. ANSI/AAMI SP 10-1992. Arlington, VA: AAMI; 1993. p. 40. [Google Scholar]
- 3.O'Brien E. Formation of the Working Group on Blood Pressure Monitoring of the European Society of Hypertension. Blood Press Monit. 1998;3:133–134. doi: 10.1097/01.mbp.0000057011.67622.05. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation. American national standard for electronic or automated sphygmomanometers. ANSI/AAMI SP10-1987. Arlington, VA: AAMI; 1987. p. 25. [Google Scholar]
- 5.O'Brien E, Petrie J, Littler WA, Padfield PL, O'Malley K, Jamieson M, et al. British hypertension protocol: evaluation of automated and semi-automated blood pressure measuring devices with special reference to ambulatory systems. J Hypertens. 1990;8:607–619. doi: 10.1097/00004872-199007000-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.O'Brien E, Atkins N. A comparison of the BHS and AAMI protocols for validating blood pressure measuring devices: can the two be reconciled? J Hypertens. 1994;12:1089–1094. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.O'Brien E, Atkins N, Staessen J. State of the market: a review of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring devices. Hypertension. 1995;26:835–842. doi: 10.1161/01.hyp.26.5.835. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.O'Brien E. Automated blood pressure measurement: state of the market in 1998 and the need for an international validation protocol for blood pressure measuring devices. Blood Press Monit. 1998;3:205–211. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.O'Brien E, Mee F, Atkins N, O'Malley K. Inaccuracy of seven popular sphygmomanometers for home-measurement of blood pressure. J Hypertens. 1990;8:621–634. doi: 10.1097/00004872-199007000-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.O'Brien E, Mee F, Atkins N, O'Malley K. Inaccuracy of the Hawksley random-zero sphygmomanometer. Lancet. 1990;336:1465–1468. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(90)93177-q. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Brown WCB, Kennedy S, Inglis GC, Murray LS, Lever AF. Mechanisms by which the Hawksley random zero sphygmomanometer underestimates blood pressure and produces a non-random distribution of RZ values. J Hum Hypertens. 1997;11:75–93. doi: 10.1038/sj.jhh.1000405. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Lones CR, Khanna M, Rushbrook J, Poston L, Shennan AH. Are aneroid devices suitable replacements for mercury sphygmomanometers? J Hum Hypertens. 2000;14:843. [Google Scholar]
- 13.Burke MJ, Towers HM, O'Malley K, Fitzgerald D, O'Brien E. Sphygmomanometers in hospitals and family practice: problems and recommendations. BMJ. 1982;285:469–471. doi: 10.1136/bmj.285.6340.469. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Anwar YA, Tendler BE, McCabe EJ, Mansoor GA, White WB. Evaluation of the Datascope Accutorr Plus according to the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation. Blood Press Monit. 1997;2:105–110. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Alpert BS. Validation of CAS model 9010 automated blood pressure monitor: children/adult and neonatal studies. Blood Press Monit. 1996;1:69–73. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Bobrie G, Battaglia C. Assessment of Tensionic Mod EPS 112 semi-automatic device of blood pressure measurement (Manufactured by Spengler – France) [Abstract] J Hypertens. 1999;17(suppl 3):S22–S23. [Google Scholar]
- 17.Zorn EA, Wilson MB, Angel JJ, Zanella J, Alpert B. Validation of an automated arterial tonometry monitor using Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation standards. Blood Press Monit. 1997;2:185–188. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.O'Brien E, Mee F, Atkins N, O'Malley K. Short report: accuracy of the Dinamap portable monitor, model 8100 determined by the British Hypertension Society protocol. J Hypertens. 1993;11:761–763. doi: 10.1097/00004872-199307000-00012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.O'Brien E, De Gaudemaria R, Bobrie G, Agabiti Rosei E, Vaisse B the participants of the first international consensus conference on blood pressure self-measurement. Devices and validation. Blood Press Monit. 2000;5:93–100. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.O'Brien E, Mee F, Atkins N, Thomas M. Evaluation of three devices for self-measurement of blood pressure according to the revised British Hypertension Society Protocol: the Omron HEM-705CP, Phillips HP5332, and Nissei DS-175. Blood Press Monit. 1996;1:55–61. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Foster C, McKinlay JM, Cruickshank JM, Coats AJS. Accuracy of the Omron HEM 706 portable monitor for home measurement of blood pressure. J Hum Hypertens. 1994;8:661–664. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Walma EP, van Dooren C, van der Does E, Prins A, Mulder P, Hoes AW. Accuracy of an oscillometric automatic blood pressure device: the Omron HEM403C. J Hum Hypertens. 1995;9:169–174. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Rithalia SVS, Edwards D. Comparison of oscillometric and intra-arterial blood pressure and pulse measurement. J Med Eng Technol. 1994;18:179–181. doi: 10.3109/03091909409030249. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Artigao M, Llavador J, Rubio M, Torres C, Lopez J, Sanchis C, et al. Evaluation of two devices for self-measurement of blood pressure according to the Britsih Hypertension Society protocol: the Omron M4 and MX2 [Abstract] Am J Hypertens. 1998;16:S276. [Google Scholar]
- 25.Córdoba R, Fuertes MI, Alvarez A, Molina L, Solans R, Melero I. Validation of a self-monitoring blood pressure monitor: the Omron-HM 722C. Aten Primaria. 1997;20:247–250. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Bortolotto LA, Henry O, Hanon O, Sikias P, Mourad J-J, Girerd X. Validation of two devices for self-measurement of blood pressure by elderly patients according to the revised British Hypertension Society protocol: the Omron HEM-722C and HEM-735C. Blood Press Monit. 1999;4:21–25. doi: 10.1097/00126097-199904010-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Mufunda J, Sparks B, Chifamba J, Dakwa C, Matenga JA, Adams JM, et al. Comparison of the Omron HEM-713C automated blood pressure monitor with a standard auscultatory method using a mercury manometer. Cent Afr J Med. 1996;42:230–232. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Anwar YA, Giacco S, McCabe EJ, Tendler BE, White WB. Evaluation of the efficacy of the Omron HEM-737 Intellisense device for use on adults according to the recommendations of the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation. Blood Press Monit. 1998;3:261–266. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Dieterle T, Battegay E, Bucheli B, Martina B. Accuracy and ‘range of uncertainity’ of oscillometric blood pressure monitors around the upper arm and wrist. Blood Press Monit. 1998;3:339–346. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Eckert S, Gleichmann U, Zagorski O, Klapp A. Validation of the Omron R3 blood pressure self-measuring device through simultaneous comparative invasive measurements according to protocol 58130 of the German Institute for Validation. Blood Press Monit. 1997;2:189–192. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Rogers P, Burke V, Stroud P, Puddey IB. Comparison of oscillometric blood pressure measurements at the wrist with an upper-arm auscultatory mercury sphygmomanometer. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol. 1999;26:477–481. doi: 10.1046/j.1440-1681.1999.03059.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Shennan AH, Rushbrook J, Power J, Wright J, Poston L. An accurate oscillometric wrist blood pressure monitor: validation of the Omron Rx [HEM-608] J Hum Hypertens. 1998;12:794. [Google Scholar]
- 33.Taylor R, Chidley K, Goodwin J, Broeders M, Kirby B. Accutracker II (version 30/23) ambulatory blood pressure monitor: clinical validationusing the British Hypertension Society and Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation standards. J Hypertens. 1993;11:1275–1282. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.O'Brien E, Mee F, Atkins N, O'Malley K. Accuracy of the CH- Druck/Pressure ERKA ambulatory blood pressure measuring system determined by the British Hypertension Society protocol. J Hypertens. 1993;11(suppl 2):S1–S7. doi: 10.1097/00004872-199210000-00025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Livi R, Teghini L, Cagnoni S, Scarpelli PT. Simultaneous and sequential same-arm measurements in the validation studies of automated blood pressure measuring devices. Am J Hypertens. 1996;9:1228–1231. doi: 10.1016/S0895-7061(96)00320-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.O'Brien E, Mee F, Atkins N, O'Malley K. Accuracy of the Novacor DIASYS 200 determined by the British Hypertension Society Protocol. J Hypertens. 1991;9(suppl 5):S9–15. doi: 10.1097/00004872-199106000-00014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Gosse P, Laforge A, Ansoborto P, Julien P, Lemetayer P, Clementy J. Clinical evaluation of the DIASYS integra blood pressure recorder [Abstract] J Hypertens. 1997;15(suppl):18S. [Google Scholar]
- 38.Kuwajima I, Nishinaga M, Kanamaru A. The accuracy and clinical performance of a new compact ambulatory blood pressure monitoring device, the ES-H531. Am J Hypertens. 1998;11:1328–1333. doi: 10.1016/s0895-7061(98)00155-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Manning G, Vijan SG, Millar-Craig MW. Technical and clinical evaluation of the Medilog ABP non-invasive blood pressure monitor. J Ambulatory Monitoring. 1994;7:255–264. [Google Scholar]
- 40.Barna I, Keszei A, Dunai A. Evaluation of Meditech ABPM-04 ambulatory blood pressure measuring device according to the British Hypertension Society protocol. Blood Press Monit. 1998;3:363–368. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Mee F, Atkins N, O'Brien E. Validation of the Nissei DS-240 ambulatory blood pressure measuring system as determined by the British Hypertension Society protocol. J Hum Hypertens. 1994;8:295. [Google Scholar]
- 42.Germanó G, Muscolo M, Angotti S, Bravo S, Codispoti P, Federico L, et al. Evaluation of a new ambulatory blood pressure device. Am J Hypertens. 1998;11:1486–1491. doi: 10.1016/s0895-7061(98)00147-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.O'Brien E, Mee F, Atkins N, O'Malley K. Short report: accuracy of the Del Mar Avionics Pressurometer IV determined by the British Hypertension Society Protocol. J Hypertens. 1991;9:567–568. doi: 10.1097/00004872-199106000-00013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.O'Brien E, Mee F, Atkins N, O'Malley K. Accuracy of the Profilomat ambulatory blood pressure measuring system determined by the British Hypertension Society protocol. J Hypertens. 1993;11(suppl 22):S9–15. doi: 10.1097/00004872-199210000-00026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Franx A, van der Post JAM, van Montfrans GA, Bruinse HW. Comparison of an auscultatory versus an oscillometric ambulatory blood pressure monitor in normotensive, hypertensive and preeclamptic pregnancy. Hypertens Pregnancy. 1997;16:187–202. [Google Scholar]
- 46.Mee F, Atkins N, O'Brien E. Evaluation of the Profilomat II ambulatory blood pressure system according to the protocols of the British Hypertension Society and the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation. Blood Press Monit. 1999;3:353–361. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.White WB, Susser W, James G, Marra L, McCabe EJ, Pickering TG, et al. Multicentre assessment of the Quiet Trak ambulatory blood pressure recorder according to the 1992 AAMI guidelines. Am J Hypertens. 1994;7:509–514. doi: 10.1093/ajh/7.6.509. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.O'Shea JC, O'Neill A, O'Brien C, Murphy MB. Evaluation of the Tycos Quiet Trak ambulatory pressure recorder using British Hypertension Society (BHS) protocol [Abstract] Am J Hypertens. 1994;7:118A. [Google Scholar]
- 49.Natarajan P, Shennan AH, Penny J, Halligan AW, de Swiet M, Anthony J. Comparison of auscultatory and oscillometric automated blood pressure monitors in the setting of preeclampsia. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;181:1203–1210. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9378(99)70109-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Penny JA, Shennan AH, Rushbrook J, Halligan A, Taylor DJ, de Swiet M. Validation of the Welch Allyn QuietTrak ambulatory blood pressure monitor in pregnancy. Hypertens Pregnancy. 1996;15:313–321. [Google Scholar]
- 51.Modesti PA, Costoli A, Cecioni I, Toccafondi S, Carnemolla A, Serneri GGN. Clinical evaluation of the QuietTrak blood pressure recorder according to the protocol of the British Hypertension Society. Blood Press Monit. 1996;1:63–68. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.De Gaudemaris R, White A, Pascal I, Siche J-P, Baguet J-P, Mallion J-M. Evaluation du moniteur de pression artérielle en ambulatoire Save 33 modèle 2. Arch Mal Coeur Vaiss. 1999;92:1133–1137. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Mee F, Atkins N, O'Brien E. Evaluation of the Shiller BR-102 ambulatory blood pressure system according to the protocols of the British Hypertension Society and the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation. Blood Press Monit. 1999;4:35–43. doi: 10.1097/00126097-199904010-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.O'Brien E, Atkins N, Mee F, O'Malley K. Evaluation of the SpaceLabs 90202 according to the AAMI standard and BHS criteria. J Hum Hypertens. 1991;5:223–226. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.O'Brien E, Mee F, Atkins N, O'Malley K. Accuracy of the SpaceLabs 90207 determined by to the British Hypertension Society Protocol. J Hypertens. 1991;9(suppl 5):S25–S31. doi: 10.1097/00004872-199106000-00016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.O'Brien E, Mee F, Atkins N, Halligan A, O'Malley K. Accuracy of the SpaceLabs 90207 ambulatory blood pressure measuring system in normotensive pregnant women determined by the British Hypertension Society Protocol. J Hypertens. 1993;11(suppl 5):S282–S283. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Shennan AH, Kissane J, de Swiet M. Validation of the Spacelabs 90207 ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in pregnancy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1993;100:904–908. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1993.tb15104.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Shennan A, Haligan A, Gupta M, Taylor D, de Swiet M. Oscillometric blood pressure measurements in severe preeclampsia: validation of the SpaceLabs 90207. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1996;103:171–173. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1996.tb09671.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Belsha CW, Wells TG, Rice HB, Neaville WA, Berry PL. Accuracy of the SpaceLabs 90207 ambulatory blood pressure monitor in children and adolescents. Blood Press Monit. 1996;1:127–133. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Iqbal P, Fotherby MD, Potter JF. Validation of the SpaceLabs 90207 automatic non-invasive blood pressure monitor in elderly subjects. Blood Press Monit. 1996;1:367–373. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Peixoto AJ, Gray TA, Crowley ST. Validation of the SpaceLabs 90207 ambulatory blood pressure device for hemodialysis patients. Blood Press Monit. 1999;4:217–221. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62.Baumgart P, Kamp J. Accuracy of the SpaceLabs Medical 90217 ambulatory blood pressure monitor. Blood Press Monit. 1998;3:303–307. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63.O'Brien E, Mee F, Atkins N, O'Malley K. Short report: accuracy of the Takeda TM-2420/TM-2020 determined by the British Hypertension Society protocol. J Hypertens. 1991;9:571–572. doi: 10.1097/00004872-199106000-00015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64.White WB, Pickering TG, Morganroth J, James GD, McCabe EJ, Moucha O, et al. A multicenter evaluation of the A&D TM-2420 ambulatory blood pressure recorder. Am J Hypertens. 1991;4:890–896. doi: 10.1093/ajh/4.11.890. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65.Palatini P, Penzo M, Canali C, Pessina AC. Validation of the accuracy of the A&D TM2420 Model 7 for ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and effect of microphone replacement on its performance. J Ambul Monit. 1991;4:281–288. [Google Scholar]
- 66.Imai Y, Sasaki S, Minami N, Munakakata M, Hashimoto J, Sakuma H, et al. The accuracy and performance of the A&D TM 2421, a new ambulatory blood pressure monitoring device based on the cuff-oscillometric method and the Korotkov sound technique. Am J Hypertens. 1992;5:719–726. doi: 10.1093/ajh/5.10.719. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67.O'Sullivan JJ, Derrick G, Griggs PE, Wren C. Validation of the Takeda 2421 ambulatory blood pressure monitor in children. J Med Eng Technol. 1998;22:101–105. doi: 10.3109/03091909809062474. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68.Palatini P, Frigo G, Bertolo O, Roman E, Da Corta R, Winnicki M. Validation of the A&D TM-2430 device for ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and evaluation of performance according to subjects' characteristics. Blood Press Monit. 1998;3:255–260. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69.Omboni S, Parati G, Groppelli A, Ulian L, Mancia G. Performance of the AM-5600 blood pressure monitor: comparison with ambulatory intra-arterial pressure. J Appl Physiol. 1997;82:698–703. doi: 10.1152/jappl.1997.82.2.698. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70.Omboni G, Parati P, Castiglioni M, Di Rienzo BP, Imholz GJ, Langewouters KH, Wesseling G, Mancia G. Estimation of blood pressure variability from 24 hour ambulatory finger blood pressure. Hypertension. 1998;32:52–58. doi: 10.1161/01.hyp.32.1.52. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71.Gizdulich P, Imholz BPM, van den Meiracker AH, Parati G, Wesseling KH. Finapres tracking of systolic blood pressure and baroreflex sensitivity improved by waveform filtering. J Hypertens. 1996;14:243–250. doi: 10.1097/00004872-199602000-00014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72.Nara AR. Performance review of a noninvasive blood pressure monitor. Med Electron. 1996;27:63–67. [Google Scholar]
- 73.Myers MG, Magharious L, Boyle E, Lewis JE. Accuracy of the Vita-Stat device in measuring blood pressure. Can J Cardiol. 1998;14(suppl F):148. F. [Google Scholar]
- 74.Ng K-G, Small CF. Survey of automated noninvasive blood pressure monitors. J Clin Eng. 1994;19:452–475. doi: 10.1097/00004669-199411000-00014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75.Ng K-G. Automated noninvasive blood pressure measurement. Intensive Care World. 1995;12:89–102. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76.O'Brien E, Atkins N. Accuracy of the Dinamap portable monitor, model 8100: a review of the evidence for accuracy. Blood Press Monit. 1997;2:31–33. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77.Pickering T.for the American Society of Hypertension Ad Hoc Panel. Recommendations for the use of home (self) and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring Am J Hypertens 199691–11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78.O'Brien E, Coats A, Owens P, Petrie J, Padheld P, Littler WA, et al. Use and interpretation of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: recommendations of the British Hypertension Society. BMJ. 2000;320:1128–1134. doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7242.1128. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 79.Myers MG, Haynes RB, Rabkin SW. Canadian Hypertension Society guidelines for ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Am J Hypertens. 1999;12:1149–1157. doi: 10.1016/s0895-7061(99)00199-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 80.European Committee for Standardization. European standard EN 1060-1 (British standard BSSEN 1060-1:1996). Specification for non-invasive sphygmomanometers. Part 1. General requirements. Brussels: European Committee for Standardization; 1995. [Google Scholar]
- 81.European Committee for Standardization. European standard EN 1060-2 (British standard BSSEN 1060-2:1996). Specification for non-invasive sphygmomanometers. Part 2. Supplementary requirements for mechanical sphygmomanometers. Brussels: European Committee for Standardization; 1995. [Google Scholar]
- 82.European Committee for Standardization. Non-invasive sphygmomanometers. Part 3. Supplementary requirements for electro-mechanical blood pressure measuring systems. British Standard BS EN 1060-3: 1997. European Standard EN 1060-3 1997. Brussels: European Committee for Standardization; 1997. [Google Scholar]
- 83.O'Brien E. Proposals for simplyfing the validation protocols of the British Hypertension Society and the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation. Blood Press Monit. 2000;5:43–45. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.