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 (ΔBP = HgBP−AutoBP) with multiple regression analysis. (2) Using ΔBP, 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 (≥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%). ΔBP 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.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Pickering TG, Hall JE, Appel LJ, et al. Subcommittee of Professional and Public Education of the American Heart Association Council on High Blood Pressure Research. Recommendations for blood pressure measurement in humans and experimental animals: Part 1: blood pressure measurement in humans: a statement for professionals from the Subcommittee of Professional and Public Education of the American Heart Association Council on High Blood Pressure Research Hypertension 2005; 45: 142–161
Rose G Standardisation of observers in blood pressure measurement Lancet 1965; 10:673–674
Bruce NG, Shaper AG, Walker M, Wannamethee G Observer bias in blood pressure studies J Hypertens 1988; 6:375–380
Cooper R, Puras A, Tracy J, et al. Evaluation of an electronic blood pressure device for epidemiologic studies Blood Press Monit 1997; 2:35–40
Kroke A, Fleischhauer W, Mieke S, Klipstein-Grobusch K, Willich SN, Boeing H Blood pressure measurement in epidemiological studies: a comparative analysis of two methods. Data from the EPIC-Potsdam Study. European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition J Hypertens 1998; 16:739–746
Kaplan N (2002) Measurement of blood pressure. In: Kaplan N (ed) Clinical Hypertension, 8th edn. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Publishers, Baltimore, pp 19–39
Parati G, Mendis S, Abegunde D, et al. Recommendations for blood pressure measuring devices for office/clinic use in low resource settings Blood Press Monit 2005; 10:3–10
American National Standard (1993) Electronic or Automated Sphygmomanometer. Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation, Arlington, VA
O’Brien E, Petrie J, Littler W, et al. An outline of the revised British Hypertension Society protocol for the evaluation of blood pressure measuring devices J Hypertens 1993; 11:677–679
O’Brien E, Waeber B, Parati G, Staessen J, Myers MG On the behalf of the European Society of Hypertension Working Group on Blood Pressure Monitoring. Blood pressure measuring devices: recommendations of the European Society of Hypertension Br Med J2001; 322:531–536
O’Brien E, Pickering T, Asmar R, et al. Working group on blood pressure monitoring of the European Society of Hypertension International Protocol for validation of blood pressure measuring devices in adults Blood Press Monit 2002; 7:3–17
Chiolero A, Gervasoni JP, Rwebogora A, et al. Discordant prevalence of hypertension using two different automated blood pressure measurement devices: a population-based study in Dar es Salaam (Tanzania) Blood Press Monit 2004; 9:59–64
Dieterle T, Battegay E, Bucheli B, Martina B Accuracy and ,,range of uncertainty“ of oscillometric blood pressure monitors around the upper arm and the wrist Blood Press Monit 1998; 3:339–346
Mee F, Atkins N, O’Brien E Evaluation of the Profilomat II ambulatory blood pressure system according to the protocols of the British Hypertension Society and the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation Blood Press Monit 1998; 3:353–361
Longo D, Bertolo O, Toffanin G, Frezza P, Palatini P Validation of the A&D UA-631 (UA-779 Life Source) device for self-measurement of blood pressure and relationship between its performance and large artery compliance Blood Press Monit 2002; 7:243–248
O’Brien E, Atkins N A comparison of the British Hypertension Society and Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation protocols for validating blood pressure measuring devices: can the two be reconciled? J Hypertens 1994; 12:1089–1094
Gerin W, Schwartz AR, Schwartz JE, et al. Limitations of current validation protocols for home blood pressure monitors for individual patients Blood Press Monit 2002; 7:313–318
Schwartz AR, Haas DC, Gerin W, Pickering TG Accurate measurement of blood pressure JAMA 2003; 289:2792
Turner MJ, Baker AB, Kam PC Effects of systematic errors in blood pressure measurements on the diagnosis of hypertension Blood Press Monit 2004; 9:249–253
Bovet P, Ross AG, Gervasoni JP, et al. Distribution of blood pressure, body mass index and smoking habits in the urban population of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and associations with socioeconomic status Int J Epidemiol 2002; 31:240–247
Edwards R, Unwin N, Mugusi F, et al. Hypertension prevalence and care in an urban and rural area of Tanzania J Hypertens 2000; 18:145–152
Bovet P, Gervasoni J-P, Ross AG, et al. Assessing the prevalence of hypertension in population: are we doing it right? J Hypertens 2003; 21:509–517
Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure : the JNC 7 report JAMA 2003; 289:2560–2572
Bland JM, Altman DG Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement Lancet 1986; 1:307–310
Ahmad OB, Boschi-Pinto C, Lopez AD, Murray CJL, Lozano R, Inoue M (2000) Age Standardisation of Rates: A New WHO World Standard. GPE Discussion Paper Series 31. WHO, Geneva
van Popele NM, Bos WJ, de Beer NA, et al. Arterial stiffness as underlying mechanism of disagreement between an oscillometric blood pressure monitor and a sphygmomanometer Hypertension 2000; 36(4):484–488
Pater C Beyond the evidence of the new hypertension guidelines. Blood pressure measurement – is it good enough for accurate diagnosis of hypertension? Time might be in, for a paradigm shift (I) Curr Control Trials Cardiovasc Med 2005; 6:6
Acknowledgements
We thank Dr Deo Mtasiwa, City Medical Officer, Dar es Salaam, for support to cardiovascular epidemiological research and Prof Michel Burnier, University Hospital, Lausanne, for valuable comments on previous versions of the manuscript. Funding: Grant of the Swiss National Science Foundation (No 32-51189.97).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chiolero, A., Gervasoni, JP., Rwebogora, A. et al. Difference in Blood Pressure Readings with Mercury and Automated Devices: Impact on Hypertension Prevalence Estimates in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Eur J Epidemiol 21, 427–433 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-006-9015-z
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-006-9015-z