Validation study of the Dinamap ProCare 200 upper arm blood pressure monitor in children and adolescents
| Autor: | Yeong Mi Hong, Myeong Jin Chang, Il Soo Ha, Chong Guk Lee, Nam Soo Kim, Hye Jung Shin, Hyang Mi Park, Kyeong Won Oh, Jin Soo Moon |
|---|---|
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Rok vydání: | 2011 |
| Předmět: |
medicine.medical_specialty
Pediatrics Validation study business.industry lcsh:RJ1-570 Diastole lcsh:Pediatrics Sphygmomanometer Oscillometric device Mercury sphygmomanometer International protocol Medical instrumentation Blood pressure Validation studies Internal medicine Pediatrics Perinatology and Child Health medicine Cardiology Original Article Dinamap business |
| Zdroj: | Korean Journal of Pediatrics Korean Journal of Pediatrics, Vol 54, Iss 11, Pp 463-469 (2011) |
| ISSN: | 2092-7258 1738-1061 |
| Popis: | PURPOSE To validate the Dinamap ProCare 200 blood pressure (BP) monitor against a mercury sphygmomanometer in children 7 to 18 years old in accordance with the 2010 International Protocol of European Society of Hypertension (ESH-IP2) and the British Hypertension Society (BHS) protocol. METHODS Forty-five children were recruited for the study. A validation procedure was performed following the protocol based on the ESH-IP2 and BHS protocols for children and adolescents. Each subject underwent 7 sequential BP measurements alternatively with a mercury sphygmomanometer and the test device by trained nurses. The results were analyzed according to the validation criteria of ESH-IP2. RESULTS The mean (±SD) difference in the absolute BP values between test device and mercury sphygmomanometer readings was 1.85±1.65 mmHg for systolic BP (SBP) and 4.41±3.53 mmHg for diastolic BP (DBP). These results fulfilled the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation criterion of a mean±SD below 5±8 mmHg for both SBP and DBP. The percentages of test device-observer mercury sphygmomanometer BP differences within 5, 10, and 15 mmHg were 96%, 100%, and 100% for SBP, and 69%, 92%, and 100% for DBP, respectively, in the part 1 analysis; both SBP and DBP passed the part 1 criteria. In the part 2 analysis, SBP passed the criteria but DBP failed. CONCLUSION Although the Dinamap ProCare 200 BP monitor failed an adapted ESH-IP2, SBP passed. When comparing BP readings measured by oscillometers and mercury sphygmomanometers, one has to consider the differences between them, particularly in DBP, because DBP can be underestimated. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|