Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2006;21(6):427-33.
doi: 10.1007/s10654-006-9015-z. Epub 2006 Jul 7.

Difference in blood pressure readings with mercury and automated devices: Impact on hypertension prevalence estimates in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Difference in blood pressure readings with mercury and automated devices: Impact on hypertension prevalence estimates in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

Arnaud Chiolero et al. Eur J Epidemiol. 2006.

Abstract

Objectives: (1) To compare blood pressure (BP) readings with an automated arm cuff oscillometric device (AutoBP) to readings with a mercury sphygmomanometer (HgBP) and (2) to evaluate the impact on the prevalence of hypertension (HBP) in a population-based survey.

Methods: (1) In a convenience sample ("Comparison Study"), we measured BP with both AutoBP (Visomat OZ2) and HgBP and we modeled BP difference (DeltaBP = HgBP-AutoBP) with multiple regression analysis. (2) Using DeltaBP, we calculated HgBP in a survey previously conducted in Dar es Salaam ("Population Survey") in which BP was measured with the automatic device Visomat OZ2 and we compared the prevalence of HBP (> or =140/90 mmHg or treatment).

Results: In the Comparison Study (404 subjects aged 25-64), systolic/diastolic BP was higher by 4.4/4.7 mmHg (SE: 0.4/0.3) with HgBP than AutoBP. The prevalence of HBP was 42% with HgBP and 36% with AutoBP (relative difference of 14%). DeltaBP was associated with age, BP and arm circumference. In the Population Survey (9.254 subjects aged 25-64), the prevalence of HBP was 17% with calculated HgBP and 14% with AutoBP (relative difference of 20%).

Conclusion: A small systematic bias in BP readings between two different devices had large impact on hypertension prevalence estimates. This suggests that automated devices used in epidemiological studies should be validated with particular care.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. JAMA. 2003 Jun 4;289(21):2792; author reply 2793-4 - PubMed
    1. J Hypertens. 2000 Feb;18(2):145-52 - PubMed
    1. Blood Press Monit. 2002 Feb;7(1):3-17 - PubMed
    1. J Hypertens. 1998 Jun;16(6):739-46 - PubMed
    1. Blood Press Monit. 2002 Aug;7(4):243-8 - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources