We performed a randomized, single-visit, crossover study to compare the precision of a digital monitor and an aneroid monitor relative to a desktop mercury sphygmomanometer (DMS). Three blood pressure measurements per patient, one per device, were taken over 25 minutes. Of 99 patients, 95 had complete blood pressure data. Systolic blood pressures measured with the digital monitor were significantly different from those with the DMS (p<0.01). Thirty-four percent of systolic and 48% of diastolic pressures measured with the digital monitor were within +/- 5 mm Hg of the DMS. The aneroid monitor performed significantly better than the digital monitor, with 54% of systolic (p<0.01) and 58% of diastolic blood pressures within +/- 5 mm Hg of the DMS standard. Health care providers are encouraged to supervise patients' initial use of a home blood pressure monitor and calibrate readings against a standard mercury sphygmomanometer.

译文

:我们进行了一项随机,单次访问的交叉研究,以比较数字监测仪和无液监测仪相对于台式水银血压计(DMS)的精度。在25分钟内对每位患者进行三项血压测量,每台设备进行一次血压测量。在99位患者中,有95位具有完整的血压数据。用数字监视器测量的收缩压与用DMS测量的收缩压有显着差异(p <0.01)。用数字监护仪测得的收缩压的百分之三十四和舒张压的百分之四十八在DMS的-5 mm Hg之内。与DMS标准相比,无液监护仪的血压明显好于数字监护仪,其收缩压为54%(p <0.01),舒张压为58%。鼓励医疗保健提供者监督患者初次使用家用血压计,并根据标准的汞血压计校准读数。

+1
+2
100研值 100研值 ¥99课程
检索文献一次
下载文献一次

去下载>

成功解锁2个技能,为你点赞

《SCI写作十大必备语法》
解决你的SCI语法难题!

技能熟练度+1

视频课《玩转文献检索》
让你成为检索达人!

恭喜完成新手挑战

手机微信扫一扫,添加好友领取

免费领《Endnote文献管理工具+教程》

微信扫码, 免费领取

手机登录

获取验证码
登录