Oscillometric and auscultatory blood pressure measurement methods in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- PMID: 27870656
- DOI: 10.1097/HJH.0000000000001178
Oscillometric and auscultatory blood pressure measurement methods in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract
Background: The phase-out of mercury from clinical settings calls for valid alternatives to assess blood pressure (BP) in children. Aneroid devices provide a mercury-free alternative to BP measurements by auscultation, whereas oscillometric (automated) devices are increasingly becoming the norm in clinical practice due to their ease of use. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the accuracy of oscillometric and aneroid BP devices compared with the mercury sphygmomanometer for the measurement of BP in children.
Methods: We systematically searched four electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science) and relevant journals for eligible articles published before 30 July 2015. We screened 1415 articles, and two authors independently reviewed 92 full-text articles.
Results: We included 29 articles (38 studies) with 26 879 children. Random-effects model meta-analyses revealed that oscillometric devices yield higher measurements of SBP than auscultation with a mercury sphygmomanometer (pooled effect estimate 2.53 mmHg; 95% CI 0.57-4.50; P < 0.05); the pooled effect estimate for SBP was smaller in studies that 'passed' validation protocols (1.76 mmHg; 95% CI 0.61-2.81; n = 12). There was no significant difference for DBP (pooled effect estimate 1.55 mmHg; 95% CI -0.20 to 3.31). There was heterogeneity between studies, explained in part by differences in manufacturer, study setting and observer training. Only three studies compared BP using aneroid and mercury devices and found comparable results.
Conclusion: Oscillometric devices may serve as a suitable alternative to auscultation for initial BP screening in the pediatric population.
Comment in
-
What systematic reviews bring to the field of hypertension.J Hypertens. 2017 Feb;35(2):240-242. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0000000000001175. J Hypertens. 2017. PMID: 28002258 No abstract available.
-
Evidence on the accuracy of automated blood pressure monitors in children: quantity versus quality.J Hypertens. 2017 Apr;35(4):896-897. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0000000000001281. J Hypertens. 2017. PMID: 28248907 No abstract available.
-
Reply.J Hypertens. 2017 Apr;35(4):897-898. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0000000000001282. J Hypertens. 2017. PMID: 28248908 No abstract available.
-
'Oscillometric': a type of device, not a type of measurement. Oh when will they ever learn?J Hypertens. 2017 Aug;35(8):1717. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0000000000001392. J Hypertens. 2017. PMID: 28657977 No abstract available.
-
Reply.J Hypertens. 2017 Aug;35(8):1717-1718. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0000000000001393. J Hypertens. 2017. PMID: 28657978 No abstract available.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
