Abstract
Responding to Chicago newspaper reports, measurements of blood pressure by a publicly available, automated coin-operated device were compared with those of human observers using the standard cuff and auscultatory technique. One machine was examined in the laboratory, and eight others at randomly selected sites. Analysis of readings made on 100 persons in the laboratory and 227 in the field led to the following conclusions: 1) On the average, the machines measured fifth phase diastolic blood pressure at nearly the same level as did human observers; 2) The machines were more variable measuring systolic blood pressure with four differing from the average human reading by 1mm Hg or less, but two differing by 8mm Hg or more; 3) The agreement between machine-human pairs of readings was not as good as between human-human pairs, but the differences in level of agreement--both in determining the actual value and in categorizing the values as normal, borderline, or high--were small and have little practical importance; 4) Linear regression analyses of the relationship between simultaneously determined machine and human readings indicated that the average human-machine difference was the same over the range of pressures tested. Publicly available blood pressure measuring devices should be labeled concerning their purposes, capabilities, and limitations. Rules and regulations governing their use in the City of Chicago are being prepared by this city's Legal Department.
Full text
PDF
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Blood pressure studies in 14 communities. A two-stage screen for hypertension. JAMA. 1977 May 30;237(22):2385–2391. doi: 10.1001/jama.1977.03270490025018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Effects of treatment on morbidity in hypertension. II. Results in patients with diastolic blood pressure averaging 90 through 114 mm Hg. JAMA. 1970 Aug 17;213(7):1143–1152. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Effects of treatment on morbidity in hypertension. Results in patients with diastolic blood pressures averaging 115 through 129 mm Hg. JAMA. 1967 Dec 11;202(11):1028–1034. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Feinleib M., Labarthe D., Shekelle R., Kuller L. Criteria for evaluation of automated blood pressure measuring devices for use in hypertensive screening programs. A report of the Committee on Criteria and Methods of the Council on Epidemiology, American Heart Association. Circulation. 1974 Mar;49(3 Suppl):6–11. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Grizzle J. E., Starmer C. F., Koch G. G. Analysis of categorical data by linear models. Biometrics. 1969 Sep;25(3):489–504. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kirkendall W. M., Burton A. C., Epstein F. H., Freis E. D. Recommendations for human blood pressure determination by sphygmomanometers. Circulation. 1967 Dec;36(6):980–988. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.36.6.980. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Labarthe D. R., Hawkins C. M., Remington R. D. Evaluation of performance of selected devices for measuring blood pressure. Am J Cardiol. 1973 Sep 20;32(4):546–553. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9149(73)80046-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Landis J. R., Koch G. G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159–174. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- MASTROPAOLO J. A., STAMLER J., BERKSON D. M., WESSEL H. U., JACKSON W. E. VALIDITY OF PHONOARTERIOGRAPHIC BLOOD PRESSURES DURING REST AND EXERCISE. J Appl Physiol. 1964 Nov;19:1219–1233. doi: 10.1152/jappl.1964.19.6.1219. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Schoenberger J. A., Stamler J., Shekelle R. B., Shekelle S. Current status of hypertension control in an industrial population. JAMA. 1972 Oct 30;222(5):559–562. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Stamler J., Stamler R., Riedlinger W. F., Algera G., Roberts R. H. Hypertension screening of 1 million Americans. Community Hypertension Evaluation Clinic (CHEC) program, 1973 through 1975. JAMA. 1976 May 24;235(21):2299–2306. doi: 10.1001/jama.235.21.2299. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]