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
. 2010 Feb;15(1):39-48.
doi: 10.1097/MBP.0b013e3283360eaf.

European Society of Hypertension International Protocol for the validation of blood pressure monitors: a critical review of its application and rationale for revision

Affiliations

European Society of Hypertension International Protocol for the validation of blood pressure monitors: a critical review of its application and rationale for revision

George S Stergiou et al. Blood Press Monit. 2010 Feb.

Abstract

Objective: To perform a systematic review of validation studies of blood pressure measuring devices done using the European Society of Hypertension International Protocol (ESH-IP) since its publication in 2002.

Methods: Major aspects of ESH-IP studies are described. A review of the ESH-IP performance, problems and violations in its application, and the effect of applying several more stringent validation criteria in an ESH-IP revision is carried out.

Results: From January 2002 to June 2009, 104 validation studies had been conducted using the ESH-IP, 36 using the British Hypertension Society protocol and 28 using the US Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation protocol. Among 78 studies reported up to June 2008, in 66 (85%) the tested device has passed the ESH-IP. In 19 validations a modification of the ESH-IP was performed to adapt for specific study needs (population or device). Protocol violations of the ESH-IP were identified in 23 studies (eight major violations). A test of several arbitrarily chosen changes in the ESH-IP validation criteria applied in the published studies showed the phase 2.1 criterion (BP differences < or =15 mmHg) and the phase 2.2 criteria to be the more stringent.

Conclusion: The ESH-IP has succeeded in expanding the validation procedure worldwide by three to four-fold compared with the period before its publication. There is a need for protocol revision aiming to address issues that appeared in published studies, prevent protocol violations, and ensure complete data reporting. Standardization of the ESH-IP validation studies' report and application of more stringent criteria should be considered.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources